Tedoff v. B & L Service Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Tedoff v. B & L Service Co.

306 S.E.2d 719, 167 Ga. App. 452, 1983 Ga. App. LEXIS 2519

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJuly 13, 1983

Docket65903

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 306 S.E.2d 719 (Tedoff v. B & L Service Co.) 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

Tedoff v. B & L Service Co., 306 S.E.2d 719, 167 Ga. App. 452, 1983 Ga. App. LEXIS 2519 (Ga. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

Sognier, Judge.

B & L Service Company, Inc. (B & L) sued Dr. Ira Tedoff on an open account for the installation of humidifying equipment. Tedoff counterclaimed for damages based on B & L’s alleged fraudulent misrepresentations. On the day of the trial, B & L failed to appear and the trial court dismissed its claim. Tedoff was allowed to present his counterclaim to the jury and was awarded a judgment. Afterwards, on B & L’s petition setting forth an alleged oral agreement between counsel for a continuance, the trial court ordered the judgment against B & L set aside, reinstated B & L’s claim and granted a new trial.

Tedoff contends that the trial court erred in granting B & L’s extraordinary motion for new trial. The first grant of a new trial will not be disturbed by this court unless the appellant shows that the trial court judge abused his discretion in granting it or that the verdict was demanded under law and evidence. OCGA § 5-5-50 (Code Ann. § 6-1608); Winn Dixie Stores v. Whaley, 127 Ga. App. 381, 382 (1) (193 SE2d 279) (1972). Even though this is an out of term motion for new trial, a trial court in its discretion can grant an extraordinary motion for new trial “where the circumstances warrant such relief.” Spyropoulos v. Linard Estate, 243 Ga. 518, 519 (255 SE2d 40) (1979).

Although both briefs discuss the alleged oral agreement between counsel for the parties, when the trial court made its decision to grant B & L’s motion it did so reciting only that it was exercising its discretion in the granting of the new trial. There is no transcript and thus, there is nothing in the record to support appellant’s contention that the trial court abused its discretion or that the circumstances did not warrant the relief.

Tedoff s other enumerations of error are without merit.

Judgment affirmed.

Quillian, P. J., and Pope, J., concur.

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

Sognier, Judge.

B & L Service Company, Inc. (B & L) sued Dr. Ira Tedoff on an open account for the installation of humidifying equipment. Tedoff counterclaimed for damages based on B & L’s alleged fraudulent misrepresentations. On the day of the trial, B & L failed to appear and the trial court dismissed its claim. Tedoff was allowed to present his counterclaim to the jury and was awarded a judgment. Afterwards, on B & L’s petition setting forth an alleged oral agreement between counsel for a continuance, the trial court ordered the judgment against B & L set aside, reinstated B & L’s claim and granted a new trial.

Tedoff contends that the trial court erred in granting B & L’s extraordinary motion for new trial. The first grant of a new trial will not be disturbed by this court unless the appellant shows that the trial court judge abused his discretion in granting it or that the verdict was demanded under law and evidence. OCGA § 5-5-50 (Code Ann. § 6-1608); Winn Dixie Stores v. Whaley, 127 Ga. App. 381, 382 (1) (193 SE2d 279) (1972). Even though this is an out of term motion for new trial, a trial court in its discretion can grant an extraordinary motion for new trial “where the circumstances warrant such relief.” Spyropoulos v. Linard Estate, 243 Ga. 518, 519 (255 SE2d 40) (1979).

Although both briefs discuss the alleged oral agreement between counsel for the parties, when the trial court made its decision to grant B & L’s motion it did so reciting only that it was exercising its discretion in the granting of the new trial. There is no transcript and thus, there is nothing in the record to support appellant’s contention that the trial court abused its discretion or that the circumstances did not warrant the relief.

Tedoff s other enumerations of error are without merit.

Judgment affirmed.

Quillian, P. J., and Pope, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

306 S.E.2d 719, 167 Ga. App. 452, 1983 Ga. App. LEXIS 2519, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tedoff-v-b-l-service-co-gactapp-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack