Smith v. Williamson & Sons Inc.

159 S.E. 912, 43 Ga. App. 702, 1931 Ga. App. LEXIS 524
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedAugust 27, 1931
Docket21167
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 159 S.E. 912 (Smith v. Williamson & Sons 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
Smith v. Williamson & Sons Inc., 159 S.E. 912, 43 Ga. App. 702, 1931 Ga. App. LEXIS 524 (Ga. Ct. App. 1931).

Opinion

Jenkins, P. J.

1. The petition as amended set forth a cause of action.

2. A judgment of the superior court sustaining a certiorari for the first time is “equivalent to the first grant of a new trial;” and where a verdict is not demanded by the evidence, the judgment sustaining the certiorari and granting a new trial should be affirmed. Murray v. Stribling, 28 Ga. App. 211 (110 S. E. 761) ; Nickajack Milling &c. Co. v. International Vegetable Oil Co., 26 Ga. App. 473 (106 S. E. 300); Gresham v. Lee, 28 Ga. App. 576, 580 (112 S. E. 524), and citations. However, when the final determination of a case tried in an inferior court “and carried by certiorari to the superior court does not depend upon any controlling question of law, and there are issues of fact involved, the superior court has no authority to render a final judgment therein, although it may clearly appear from the facts disclosed by the record that the verdict rendered in the lower court was without evidence to support it.” Patterson v. Central of Ga. Ry. Co., 117 Ga. 827 (45 S. E. 250) ; Holmes v. Pye, 107 Ga. 784 (33 S. E. 816) ; Walker v. Reese, 110 Ga. 582 (35 S. E. 771) ; Bryan v. Central of Ga. Ry. Co., 117 Ga. 827 (45 S. E. 72) ; State v. Johnson, 21 Ga. App. 320 (94 S. E. 325) ; Zeigler v. Perry, 37 Ga. App. 647, 648 (4) (141 S. E. 426). Accordingly, although the judge of the superior court did not abuse his discretion in sustaining the certiorari, it was error to go further and render final judgment for the plaintiff in certiorari.

Judgment reversed.

Stephens and Bell, JJ., concur. Colquitt, Parlcer, Troutman & Arlcwright, Bay Williams, for plaintiff. G. H. Cornwell, for defendant.

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

Related

Jarius Mann v. City of Atlanta, Ga
Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2015
Law v. State
89 S.E.2d 550 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1955)
Arnold v. State
77 S.E.2d 550 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1953)
Deaton v. Taliaferro
57 S.E.2d 215 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1950)
Tyler v. National Life & Accident Insurance
172 S.E. 747 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1934)
McWhorter v. Stein
171 S.E. 583 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1933)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
159 S.E. 912, 43 Ga. App. 702, 1931 Ga. App. LEXIS 524, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-williamson-sons-inc-gactapp-1931.