Servisco, Inc. v. R. B. M. of Atlanta, Inc.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Servisco, Inc. v. R. B. M. of Atlanta, Inc.

250 S.E.2d 10, 147 Ga. App. 671, 1978 Ga. App. LEXIS 2889

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedOctober 23, 1978

Docket56303

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 250 S.E.2d 10 (Servisco, Inc. v. R. B. M. of Atlanta, Inc.) 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

Servisco, Inc. v. R. B. M. of Atlanta, Inc., 250 S.E.2d 10, 147 Ga. App. 671, 1978 Ga. App. LEXIS 2889 (Ga. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

Smith, Judge.

The trial court, after rendering a non-jury judgment for appellant, granted appellee a new trial on the ground that appellant had improperly been denied its right to a trial by jury. We reverse, as vie find that appellee waived its right to jury trial.

1. Contrary to appellee’s contention, "the first grant of a new trial on special grounds involving a question of law is reviewable in a proper appeal.” Smith v. Telecable of Columbus, Inc., 238 Ga. 559, 560 (234 SE2d 24) (1977).

2. In this suit for breach of contract appellant sought damages in the amount of $5,520.80. Appellee’s answer raised, inter alia, the defense of failure of consideration. The case proceeded to trial without a jury, and the court entered judgment in favor of appellant. Appellee and its attorney participated in the proceeding, without raising objection to the absence of a jury until a judgment was rendered in appellant’s favor. We agree with appellee that Ga. L. 1913, pp. 145,164, § 39, which requires a demand for jury trial on or before appearance day as a condition precedent to jury trial, must yield to contrary law set out in CPA § 39. Gregson & Assoc. v. Webb, 143 Ga. 276 (238 SE2d 274) (1977); Ga. L. 1976, pp. 3023, 3030, § 17; Ga. L. 1970, pp. 679, 681, § 8 (Code Ann. § 24-2107a). However, we believe appellee’s active participation, in the non-jury trial without demanding a jury until subsequent to the entry of an adverse judgment on the merits constituted a waiver of jury trial. A party to litigation cannot *672 "voluntarily participate in a trial before a judge without a jury, proceed without reservation to have the trial court hear the case without the intervention of a jury, not object to the trial court’s rendering judgment on the merits, and, then, after an unfavorable judgment is rendered, set aside the judgment because no jury trial was had. . .” Wise &c. Assoc. v. Rosser White &c. Inc., 146 Ga. App. 789, 795, 796 (247 SE2d 479) (1978). Holloman v. Holloman, 228 Ga. 246 (184 SE2d 653) (1971). The trial court’s grant of appellee’s motion for new trial was error.

Argued September 11, 1978 Decided October 23, 1978. Arrington, Rubin, Winter, Krischer & Goger, John J. Goger, for appellant. George H. Freisem, III, for appellee.

Judgment reversed.

Deen, P. J., and Banke, J., concur.

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

Smith, Judge.

The trial court, after rendering a non-jury judgment for appellant, granted appellee a new trial on the ground that appellant had improperly been denied its right to a trial by jury. We reverse, as vie find that appellee waived its right to jury trial.

1. Contrary to appellee’s contention, "the first grant of a new trial on special grounds involving a question of law is reviewable in a proper appeal.” Smith v. Telecable of Columbus, Inc., 238 Ga. 559, 560 (234 SE2d 24) (1977).

2. In this suit for breach of contract appellant sought damages in the amount of $5,520.80. Appellee’s answer raised, inter alia, the defense of failure of consideration. The case proceeded to trial without a jury, and the court entered judgment in favor of appellant. Appellee and its attorney participated in the proceeding, without raising objection to the absence of a jury until a judgment was rendered in appellant’s favor. We agree with appellee that Ga. L. 1913, pp. 145,164, § 39, which requires a demand for jury trial on or before appearance day as a condition precedent to jury trial, must yield to contrary law set out in CPA § 39. Gregson & Assoc. v. Webb, 143 Ga. 276 (238 SE2d 274) (1977); Ga. L. 1976, pp. 3023, 3030, § 17; Ga. L. 1970, pp. 679, 681, § 8 (Code Ann. § 24-2107a). However, we believe appellee’s active participation, in the non-jury trial without demanding a jury until subsequent to the entry of an adverse judgment on the merits constituted a waiver of jury trial. A party to litigation cannot *672 "voluntarily participate in a trial before a judge without a jury, proceed without reservation to have the trial court hear the case without the intervention of a jury, not object to the trial court’s rendering judgment on the merits, and, then, after an unfavorable judgment is rendered, set aside the judgment because no jury trial was had. . .” Wise &c. Assoc. v. Rosser White &c. Inc., 146 Ga. App. 789, 795, 796 (247 SE2d 479) (1978). Holloman v. Holloman, 228 Ga. 246 (184 SE2d 653) (1971). The trial court’s grant of appellee’s motion for new trial was error.

Argued September 11, 1978 Decided October 23, 1978. Arrington, Rubin, Winter, Krischer & Goger, John J. Goger, for appellant. George H. Freisem, III, for appellee.

Judgment reversed.

Deen, P. J., and Banke, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

250 S.E.2d 10, 147 Ga. App. 671, 1978 Ga. App. LEXIS 2889, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/servisco-inc-v-r-b-m-of-atlanta-inc-gactapp-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack