Richie v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad

99 S.E. 309, 23 Ga. App. 741, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 328
Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided May 16, 1919·No. 10246, 10247·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Luke, J.

It appears to be conclusively settled that, notwithstanding the return of a second verdict in favor of the same party, the trial judge may still exercise his discretion in granting or refusing a new trial, though that discretion may not then be as ample as on the hearing of the motion for a first new trial (Morgan v. Lamb, 16 Ga. App. 484, and cases there cited, 85 S. E. 792) ; and under the particular, facts of the instant case the second grant of a new trial was not an abuse of the discretion vested in the trial judge.

Judgment affirmed on both bills of exceptions.

Wade, C. J., and Jenkins, J., conewr.

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

Richie v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad, 99 S.E. 309, 23 Ga. App. 741, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 328 (Ga. Ct. App. 1919).

99 S.E. 309 (Richie v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Allen v. Southern Insurance Securities Corp.
187 S.E. 714 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1936)
Smith v. State Mutual Life Insurance
165 S.E. 896 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1932)
Jones v. Stapler
102 S.E. 34 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1920)