Spivey v. Eavenson
This text of 258 S.E.2d 54 (Spivey v. Eavenson) 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.
Opinion
Plaintiff-appellee brought suit for damages alleging that defendant-appellant did in violation of Code Ann. § 62-2005 kill a dog belonging to plaintiff. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals. We affirm.
1. Defendant’s sole contention on appeal is that the court committed reversible error in refusing to direct a verdict in his behalf. We disagree.
" 'The direction of a verdict is proper only where there is no conflict in the evidence as to any material issue and the evidence introduced, with all reasonable deductions therefrom, shall demand a particular verdict. Code Ann. § 81A-150 (a). A verdict may only be directed in situtations where, if there were a determination the other way, it would have to be set aside by the court. [Cit.]’" Kelly Ford, Inc. v. Paracsi, 141 Ga. App. 626 (2) (234 SE2d 170).
As there was conflicting evidence regarding the justification of defendant’s actions under Code Ann. § 62-2005, there was a material issue of fact to submit to the jury. The trial court properly denied defendant’s motion for a directed verdict.
2. Appellee filed a motion for damages pursuant to Code Ann. § 6-1801. As we are not satisfied that this appeal was made for delay only, the motion is denied.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
258 S.E.2d 54, 150 Ga. App. 429, 1979 Ga. App. LEXIS 2337, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/spivey-v-eavenson-gactapp-1979.