Security Insurance v. Jackson
Opinion
1. “The general rule is that a motion for new trial, which includes a brief of the evidence, must be made during the term at which the trial was had; and where a motion for new trial is made in term, and no brief of the evidence is filed [during that term], and no order of court is taken extending- the time at which the brief of evidence may be filed, it is proper to dismiss the motion [upon its hearing in vacation or at a subsequent term]. These requirements are jurisdictional.” Garraux v. Ross, 150 Ga. 645 (104 S. E. 907), and cit.
2. Under the above-stated ruling- and the facts of the instant case, the court erred in overruling- the motion to dismiss the motion for a new trial; and the cross-bill of exceptions, assigning error on that judgment, is meritorious. In each of the casos cited in the brief of counsel for the defendant in error in the cross-bill of exceptions, in which it was held that the dismissal of the motion for a new trial was within the discretion of the court, there was an order of court extending- the time for filing- the brief of the evidence. Under the facts here, no brief of the evidence having been filed during- the proper term, and no order [689] taken for an extension of tlie time of filing, no valid motion for a new trial was pending (Verner v. Gann, 144 Ga. 843, 88 S. E. 204), and the court liad no discretion in tlie matter.
Judgment reversed on the w'oss-bill of exceptionsj main bill of exceptions (dismissed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
151 S.E. 410 (Security Insurance v. Jackson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.