Stroud v. Wray Bros.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Stroud v. Wray Bros.

140 S.E. 773, 37 Ga. App. 461, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 340

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedNovember 16, 1927

Docket18306

StatusPublished

This text of 140 S.E. 773 (Stroud v. Wray Bros.) 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

Stroud v. Wray Bros., 140 S.E. 773, 37 Ga. App. 461, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 340 (Ga. Ct. App. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

This was an action in trover, and upon the trial the plaintiff elected to take a money verdict for the highest proved value of the property between the time of the conversion and the time of the trial. The jury returned a verdict for “$106.20 principal, and $36.20 interest.” It is well settled by numerous decisions [462]*462of the Supreme Court and of this court that in such a case the plaintiff is not entitled to recover interest. In the instant case it appearing that the plaintiff, after the return of the verdict, insisted that he was entitled to the full amount of the verdict, the court properly granted the defendant a new trial on the ground that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover any interest. The grant of a new trial was based also on two other grounds as set forth in the order of the trial court. . However, under all the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto, the court erred in granting a new trial on the two additional grounds. Therefore, under the broad authority vested in this court, and for the purpose of terminating this litigation which began in 1922, the judgment granting a new trial is affirmed with direction that when the remittitur from this court is made the judgment of the trial coprt the plaintiff be allowed to write off from the verdict the amount found for interest, and that final judgment be entered in favor of the plaintiff for $106.20, and that the judgment granting a new trial be vacated. The costs of bringing the case to this court are taxed against the plaintiff in error.

Judgment affirmed, with' direction.

Luke and Bloodworlh, JJ., concur.

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

Broyles, C. J.

This was an action in trover, and upon the trial the plaintiff elected to take a money verdict for the highest proved value of the property between the time of the conversion and the time of the trial. The jury returned a verdict for “$106.20 principal, and $36.20 interest.” It is well settled by numerous decisions [462]*462of the Supreme Court and of this court that in such a case the plaintiff is not entitled to recover interest. In the instant case it appearing that the plaintiff, after the return of the verdict, insisted that he was entitled to the full amount of the verdict, the court properly granted the defendant a new trial on the ground that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover any interest. The grant of a new trial was based also on two other grounds as set forth in the order of the trial court. . However, under all the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto, the court erred in granting a new trial on the two additional grounds. Therefore, under the broad authority vested in this court, and for the purpose of terminating this litigation which began in 1922, the judgment granting a new trial is affirmed with direction that when the remittitur from this court is made the judgment of the trial coprt the plaintiff be allowed to write off from the verdict the amount found for interest, and that final judgment be entered in favor of the plaintiff for $106.20, and that the judgment granting a new trial be vacated. The costs of bringing the case to this court are taxed against the plaintiff in error.

Judgment affirmed, with' direction.

Luke and Bloodworlh, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

140 S.E. 773, 37 Ga. App. 461, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 340, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stroud-v-wray-bros-gactapp-1927.