Pennsylvania Lumbermen's Mutual Fire Insurance v. Magid of Tallulah Inc.

189 S.E. 552, 54 Ga. App. 881, 1936 Ga. App. LEXIS 787
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedNovember 19, 1936
Docket25715
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 189 S.E. 552 (Pennsylvania Lumbermen's Mutual Fire Insurance v. Magid of Tallulah Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Pennsylvania Lumbermen's Mutual Fire Insurance v. Magid of Tallulah Inc., 189 S.E. 552, 54 Ga. App. 881, 1936 Ga. App. LEXIS 787 (Ga. Ct. App. 1936).

Opinions

Stephens, J.

1. An order passed in term time, setting the hearing of a motion for new trial for a specific date, and providing that the movant be allowed to present a brief of evidence “at the time of the hearing of this motion for new trial,” gave the movant the right to present for approval a brief of evidence on the date of the hearing of the motion, whenever this might be, notwithstanding the motion might be heard at a date subsequent to that in the order. Womack v. Womack, 149 Ga. 496 (100 S. E. 570). Where the motion came on for a hearing in term time, at a date subsequent to that set by the order, and it appeared that a brief of evidence had been offered, approved, and filed at a date subsequent to that set for the hearing, it was not error to overrule a motion by the respondent to dismiss the motion for new trial, on the ground that no brief of evidence had been filed and approved within the time fixed by the order or within the time allowed by law.

2. Where a verdict for the plaintiff was rendered, and there was evidence from which the jury could have found a larger amount, and there was no exception by the defendant, but only the plaintiff moved for a new trial, the first grant will not be reversed on the ground that there was no liability against the defendant, and that the verdict was demanded as a matter of law.

Smith, Smith & Bloodworth, for plaintiff in error. Wallcins, Grant & Watkins, contra.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Rozenberg v. Sund
60 S.E.2d 390 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1950)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
189 S.E. 552, 54 Ga. App. 881, 1936 Ga. App. LEXIS 787, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pennsylvania-lumbermens-mutual-fire-insurance-v-magid-of-tallulah-inc-gactapp-1936.