Southern Railway Co. v. Adams

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Southern Railway Co. v. Adams

80 S.E. 912, 14 Ga. App. 366, 1914 Ga. App. LEXIS 255

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 20, 1914

Docket5195

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 80 S.E. 912 (Southern Railway Co. v. Adams) 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

Southern Railway Co. v. Adams, 80 S.E. 912, 14 Ga. App. 366, 1914 Ga. App. LEXIS 255 (Ga. Ct. App. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

Pottle, J.

1. The direct exception to the direction of the verdict in the plaintiff’s favor was not made within the time required by law. Civil Code, § 6152.

2. A motion for a new trial based solely upon the general grounds, that the verdict is contrary to law and evidexxce, raises only the question Whether there was any evidence to authox-ize the verdict. The fact that this verdict may have been returned by direction of the court does not alter the rule. Under such an assignment of eri'or the coux-t can not detennine whether this directed verdict was error; for there may have been some evidence which supported the verdict. Moody v. Southern Railway Co., 14 Ga. App. 258 (80 S. E. 911).

3. There being some evidence to authox-ize the verdict in the plaintiff’s favox-, the discretion of the trial judge in overruling the motion fox-new tx-ial will not be distux-bed. There being some evidence which Would warrant a finding that the railway company wx-ongfully refused to deliver to the plaintiff the car of coal for the value of which the suit was brought, axxd wrongfully converted the coal to its own use, the plaintiff could waive the tort axxd sue on an implied promise to pay for the coal. While the evidexxce does not clearly show the value of the coal, the' suit was on open account for the valxxe, and the plaintiff testified that the account sued on was cox-rect. This testimony, together with the other evidence in the case, was sufficient to make out a prima facie ease fox- the plaintiff. Judgment affirmed.

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

Pottle, J.

1. The direct exception to the direction of the verdict in the plaintiff’s favor was not made within the time required by law. Civil Code, § 6152.

2. A motion for a new trial based solely upon the general grounds, that the verdict is contrary to law and evidexxce, raises only the question Whether there was any evidence to authox-ize the verdict. The fact that this verdict may have been returned by direction of the court does not alter the rule. Under such an assignment of eri'or the coux-t can not detennine whether this directed verdict was error; for there may have been some evidence which supported the verdict. Moody v. Southern Railway Co., 14 Ga. App. 258 (80 S. E. 911).

3. There being some evidence to authox-ize the verdict in the plaintiff’s favox-, the discretion of the trial judge in overruling the motion fox-new tx-ial will not be distux-bed. There being some evidence which Would warrant a finding that the railway company wx-ongfully refused to deliver to the plaintiff the car of coal for the value of which the suit was brought, axxd wrongfully converted the coal to its own use, the plaintiff could waive the tort axxd sue on an implied promise to pay for the coal. While the evidexxce does not clearly show the value of the coal, the' suit was on open account for the valxxe, and the plaintiff testified that the account sued on was cox-rect. This testimony, together with the other evidence in the case, was sufficient to make out a prima facie ease fox- the plaintiff. Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

80 S.E. 912, 14 Ga. App. 366, 1914 Ga. App. LEXIS 255, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/southern-railway-co-v-adams-gactapp-1914.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack