Purser v. Thompson

Supreme Court of Georgia

Purser v. Thompson

70 S.E. 569, 135 Ga. 732, 1911 Ga. LEXIS 66

Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided February 18, 1911·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

Fish, C. J.

1.' The first grant of a new trial will not be disturbed by the Supreme Court where it does not appear that the verdict was required under the law and the facts. Civil Code (1895), § 5585. See Cox v. Grady, 132 Ga. 368 (64 S. E. 262). Under the evidence in this ease and the law applicable thereto, the verdict rendered was not required.

2. When a judgment granting a new trial is affirmed, questions raised by assignments of error upon pendente lite exceptions can not be considered and determined by the Supreme Court, as the case is still pending in the trial court. Armour & Co. v. Burkhalter, 130 Ga. 370 (60 S. E. 850).

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Fish, C. J.

1.' The first grant of a new trial will not be disturbed by the Supreme Court where it does not appear that the verdict was required under the law and the facts. Civil Code (1895), § 5585. See Cox v. Grady, 132 Ga. 368 (64 S. E. 262). Under the evidence in this ease and the law applicable thereto, the verdict rendered was not required.

2. When a judgment granting a new trial is affirmed, questions raised by assignments of error upon pendente lite exceptions can not be considered and determined by the Supreme Court, as the case is still pending in the trial court. Armour & Co. v. Burkhalter, 130 Ga. 370 (60 S. E. 850).

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

Purser v. Thompson, 70 S.E. 569, 135 Ga. 732, 1911 Ga. LEXIS 66 (Ga. 1911).

Pincite

70 S.E. 569 (Purser v. Thompson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related