Purser v. Thompson

70 S.E. 569, 135 Ga. 732, 1911 Ga. LEXIS 66
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedFebruary 18, 1911
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

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

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

Related

Sullivan v. Dixon
34 S.E.2d 318 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1945)
Hopkins v. Brumbelow
24 S.E.2d 318 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1943)
Carr v. Carr
121 S.E. 227 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1924)
Pusser v. Thompson
92 S.E. 866 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1917)
Chandler v. Smith
89 S.E. 199 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1916)
Young v. Ewing
71 S.E. 5 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1911)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
70 S.E. 569, 135 Ga. 732, 1911 Ga. LEXIS 66, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/purser-v-thompson-ga-1911.