Pitts v. Rape

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Pitts v. Rape

104 S.E. 643, 25 Ga. App. 722, 1920 Ga. App. LEXIS 172

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedNovember 2, 1920

Docket11390

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 104 S.E. 643 (Pitts v. Rape) 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

Pitts v. Rape, 104 S.E. 643, 25 Ga. App. 722, 1920 Ga. App. LEXIS 172 (Ga. Ct. App. 1920).

Pincite

Opinion

Jenkins, P. J.

1. “ A charge stating substantially the law that admissions should be scanned with care, and cautioning the jury not to give them more meaning than they are justly entitled to, was not erroneous.” Stewart v. DeLoach, 86 Ga. 729 (2) (12 S. E. 1067); Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Gray, 113 Ga. 424, 430 (38 S. E. 992).

2. While a court of record lias plenary control of its judgments during the term at which they are rendered (Jones v. Garage Equipment Co. 16 Ga. App. 596, 85 S. E. 940), still it is mandatory that they shall in all cases conform to the true meaning and intent of the verdict. Southern Ry. Co. v. Oliver, 1 Ga. App. 734 (5) (58 S. E. 244) ; Mangel v. White Crown Fruit Jar Co., 20 Ga. App. 339 (93 S. E. 307). Thus, in a suit on a note, where the plea filed is that of complete payment, and where a verdict is rendered in favor of tlio defendant, it is beyond tlie power of the judge, either in term time or thereafter, to enter up a judgment in favor of the plaintiff in a named amount, although the evidence! of the defendant himself in support of his plea of payment might have demanded such a verdict. It was the duty of the judge on motion to set the verdict aside, as being contrary to evidence.

Judgment reversed.

Stephens and Smith, JJ., concur.

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

Jenkins, P. J.

1. “ A charge stating substantially the law that admissions should be scanned with care, and cautioning the jury not to give them more meaning than they are justly entitled to, was not erroneous.” Stewart v. DeLoach, 86 Ga. 729 (2) (12 S. E. 1067); Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Gray, 113 Ga. 424, 430 (38 S. E. 992).

2. While a court of record lias plenary control of its judgments during the term at which they are rendered (Jones v. Garage Equipment Co. 16 Ga. App. 596, 85 S. E. 940), still it is mandatory that they shall in all cases conform to the true meaning and intent of the verdict. Southern Ry. Co. v. Oliver, 1 Ga. App. 734 (5) (58 S. E. 244) ; Mangel v. White Crown Fruit Jar Co., 20 Ga. App. 339 (93 S. E. 307). Thus, in a suit on a note, where the plea filed is that of complete payment, and where a verdict is rendered in favor of tlio defendant, it is beyond tlie power of the judge, either in term time or thereafter, to enter up a judgment in favor of the plaintiff in a named amount, although the evidence! of the defendant himself in support of his plea of payment might have demanded such a verdict. It was the duty of the judge on motion to set the verdict aside, as being contrary to evidence.

Judgment reversed.

Stephens and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

104 S.E. 643, 25 Ga. App. 722, 1920 Ga. App. LEXIS 172, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pitts-v-rape-gactapp-1920.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack