Sampson v. Smith

116 S.E. 652, 29 Ga. App. 683, 1923 Ga. App. LEXIS 161
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedFebruary 21, 1923
Docket13352
StatusPublished

This text of 116 S.E. 652 (Sampson v. Smith) 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
Sampson v. Smith, 116 S.E. 652, 29 Ga. App. 683, 1923 Ga. App. LEXIS 161 (Ga. Ct. App. 1923).

Opinion

Bloodworth, J.

1. Under the ruling in Cone v. American Surety Co., 154 Ga. App. 841 (115 S. E. 481), the motion to dismiss the writ of error in this ease is overruled.

2. “ It may be considered as settled that this court will not, under any circumstances, reverse a judgment granting a first new trial, whether the grant be general upon all the grounds of the motion or special upon one or more grounds only, or whether it be upon a ground which involves questions of evidence or upon a ground which involves purely questions of law, unless it is made to appear that no other verdict 'than the one rendered could possibly have been returned under the law" and facts of the case. Unless the case can be brought within the exception just stated, it is useless for parties to bring before this court the judgment of a trial judge granting a first new trial.” Weinkle v. Brunswick & Western R. Co., 107 Ga. 367 (33 S. E. 471). See also Macon Consolidated Street R. Co. v. Jones, 116 Ga. 351 (42 S. E. 468); Mock v. Savannah & Statesboro Ry. Co., 122 Ga. 385 (50 S. E. 121); Cox v. Grady, 132 Ga. 368 (64 S. E. 362); Smith v. Maddox-Rucker Banking Co., 135 Ga. 151 (68 S. E. 1031); New v. Southern Ry. Co., 136 Ga. 778 (71 S. E. 1104); Wilkes v. Barnes, 10 Ga. App. 316 (73 S. E. 349); Southern Fertilizer & Chemical Co. v. Peacock, 19 Ga. App. 592 (91 S. E. 528); Civil Code (1910), § 6204. The fact that upon the trial of this ease by the judge without a jury, and with the same facts before him as he had upon the motion for a new trial, he overruled a motion to nonsuit will not change the application of the foregoing rule. Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Luke, J., concur.

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

Related

Weinkle & Sons v. Brunswick & Western Railroad
33 S.E. 471 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1899)
Macon Consolidated Street Railroad v. Jones
42 S.E. 468 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1902)
Mock v. Savannah & Statesboro Railway Co.
50 S.E. 121 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1905)
Cox v. Grady
64 S.E. 262 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1909)
Smith v. Maddox-Rucker Banking Co.
68 S.E. 1031 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1910)
New v. Southern Railway Co.
71 S.E. 1104 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1911)
Cone v. American Surety Co.
115 S.E. 481 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1923)
Wilkins v. Barnes
73 S.E. 349 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1912)
Southern Fertilizer & Chemical Co. v. Peacock
91 S.E. 928 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1917)
Gilbert v. Peppers
64 S.E. 361 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1909)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
116 S.E. 652, 29 Ga. App. 683, 1923 Ga. App. LEXIS 161, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sampson-v-smith-gactapp-1923.