Puckett v. Heaton

Supreme Court of Georgia

Puckett v. Heaton

121 S.E. 240, 157 Ga. 232, 1924 Ga. LEXIS 24

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 16, 1924

DocketNo. 3822

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 121 S.E. 240 (Puckett v. Heaton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Puckett v. Heaton, 121 S.E. 240, 157 Ga. 232, 1924 Ga. LEXIS 24 (Ga. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

Hill, J.

This is the third appearance of this case in the Supreme Court. Puckett v. Heaton, 151 Ga. 211 (106 S. E. 116); Puckett v. Heaton, 153 Ga. 69 (111 S. E. 402). The judgment of the lower court was affirmed in the ease first cited, on exception to the appointment, of a receiver. In the second case the judgment of the lower court was reversed on an erroneous charge of the court to the jury. In the latter case the verdict was for the plaintiff. In the present ease the jury returned a verdict for the defendant. The trial judge granted a new trial on a motion based solely on the usual general grounds. This is the first exercise of his discretion in granting a new trial. The evidence in the present case is sharply conflicting, and the verdict under the evidence and the law applicable thereto was not demanded. Therefore there was no abuse of discretion on the part of the trial judge in granting a new trial. Spencer v. Rowe, 136 Ga. 243 (71 S. E. 157), and cases cited; Civil Code (1910), § 6204.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Hill, J.

This is the third appearance of this case in the Supreme Court. Puckett v. Heaton, 151 Ga. 211 (106 S. E. 116); Puckett v. Heaton, 153 Ga. 69 (111 S. E. 402). The judgment of the lower court was affirmed in the ease first cited, on exception to the appointment, of a receiver. In the second case the judgment of the lower court was reversed on an erroneous charge of the court to the jury. In the latter case the verdict was for the plaintiff. In the present ease the jury returned a verdict for the defendant. The trial judge granted a new trial on a motion based solely on the usual general grounds. This is the first exercise of his discretion in granting a new trial. The evidence in the present case is sharply conflicting, and the verdict under the evidence and the law applicable thereto was not demanded. Therefore there was no abuse of discretion on the part of the trial judge in granting a new trial. Spencer v. Rowe, 136 Ga. 243 (71 S. E. 157), and cases cited; Civil Code (1910), § 6204.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

121 S.E. 240, 157 Ga. 232, 1924 Ga. LEXIS 24, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/puckett-v-heaton-ga-1924.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack