Sunset Villa, Inc. v. MOTHNER-SIMOWITZ INSURANCE AGENCY, INC.

218 S.E.2d 463, 135 Ga. App. 706, 1975 Ga. App. LEXIS 1791
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedSeptember 9, 1975
Docket50727
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 218 S.E.2d 463 (Sunset Villa, Inc. v. MOTHNER-SIMOWITZ INSURANCE AGENCY, 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
Sunset Villa, Inc. v. MOTHNER-SIMOWITZ INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., 218 S.E.2d 463, 135 Ga. App. 706, 1975 Ga. App. LEXIS 1791 (Ga. Ct. App. 1975).

Opinion

Clark, Judge.

Mothner-Simowitz Insurance Agency, Inc. sued Sunset Villa, Inc. to recover $10,477.25 due on an account for insurance policy premiums. In addition to denial of the allegations of the complaint, defendant counterclaimed. The basis of the counterclaim was a contention that plaintiff had breached an agreement which defendant claimed to have governed their transactions. At the close of all the evidence, the trial court granted plaintiff s motion for a directed verdict in its favor and against the counterclaim. Following the entry of judgment, defendant appealed.

"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 situations where, if there were a determination the other way, it would have to be set aside by the court. Standard Acc. Ins. Co. v. Winget, 197 F2d 97 (34 ALR2d 250). It is only where reasonable men may not differ as to the inferences to be drawn from the evidence that it is proper for the judge to remove the case from jury consideration. Canal Ins. Co. v. Tate, 111 Ga. App. 377 (141 SE2d 851).” State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Snyder, 125 Ga. App. 352 (187 SE2d 878).

Our reading of the transcript reveals a conflict exists as to the terms of the agreement and plaintiffs compliance therewith. Accordingly, the judgment is reversed.

Judgment reversed.

Pannell, P. J., and Quillian, J., concur.

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

Related

Eubanks v. Business Equipment Center of Atlanta, Inc.
288 S.E.2d 273 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1982)
Auto Rental & Leasing Inc. v. Blizzard
284 S.E.2d 47 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1981)
Whitco Produce Co. v. Bonanza International, Inc.
267 S.E.2d 627 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1980)
Fonda Corp. v. Southern Sprinkler Co.
241 S.E.2d 256 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1977)
Chewning v. Huebner
235 S.E.2d 573 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1977)
Nationwide Mutual Insurance v. Ware
231 S.E.2d 556 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1976)
Kalish v. King Cabinet Co.
232 S.E.2d 86 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1976)
Mitchell & Pickering v. Louis Isaacson, Inc.
229 S.E.2d 535 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1976)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
218 S.E.2d 463, 135 Ga. App. 706, 1975 Ga. App. LEXIS 1791, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sunset-villa-inc-v-mothner-simowitz-insurance-agency-inc-gactapp-1975.