Skipper v. Overall

171 S.E. 310, 47 Ga. App. 691, 1933 Ga. App. LEXIS 602
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedOctober 6, 1933
Docket23061
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 171 S.E. 310 (Skipper v. Overall) 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
Skipper v. Overall, 171 S.E. 310, 47 Ga. App. 691, 1933 Ga. App. LEXIS 602 (Ga. Ct. App. 1933).

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

1. "The first grant of a new trial will not be disturbed unless it appears 'that the judge abused his discretion in granting it, and that the law and facts required the verdict notwithstanding the judgment of the presiding judge.’ Civil Code (1910), § 6204.” Stalnaker v. Beach, 18 Ga. App. 172 (88 S. E. 99) ; Southern Fertilizer Co. v. Peacock, 19 Ga. App. 592 (91 S. E. 928). “This principle in reference to the first grant of a new trial is applicable when the grant is conditional and the condition is not complied with. Harris v. Central Ry. Co., 103 Ga. 495 (30 S. E. 425) ; Wood v. Southern Express Co., 95 Ga. 451 (22 S. E. 535).” Ellis v. Spell, 20 Ga. App. 347 (93 S. E. 49).

2. Under the foregoing ruling and the facts of the instant case, this court can not say that the judge abused his discretion in this first grant of a new trial, and, therefore, the judgment must be and is

Affirmed.

MacIntyre and Guerry, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Piedmont Wagon & Manufacturing Co. v. Bird
176 S.E. 109 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1934)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
171 S.E. 310, 47 Ga. App. 691, 1933 Ga. App. LEXIS 602, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/skipper-v-overall-gactapp-1933.