Walker v. Jones

Supreme Court of Georgia

Walker v. Jones

77 S.E. 628, 139 Ga. 508, 1913 Ga. LEXIS 491

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 26, 1913

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 77 S.E. 628 (Walker v. Jones) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Walker v. Jones, 77 S.E. 628, 139 Ga. 508, 1913 Ga. LEXIS 491 (Ga. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

Atkinson, J.

1. The special demurrers to the petition as amended, and to the answer, are without merit.

2. Where, in an action at law to recover a certain sum alleged to be due on several items of indebtedness, a verdict is rendered for the plaintiff m a stated sum of principal and interest, and a new trial is granted on certain grounds of the motion which relate to some of the particular items of indebtedness, and refused as to others, the court is without power, m ordering a new trial, to restrict the case to the issues bearing-on the items of indebtedness referred to in the grounds of the motion upon which a new trial is granted, to the exclusion of other issues made by the pleadings.

(a.) 'The order of reference to an auditor of so much of the case as was reserved m the order granting a new trial, and all subsequent procedure thereon, was erroneous. Direction is given that so much of the judgment granting a new trial as restricts the procedure to certain issues be vacated, and that a trial of the whole case be had on its merits.

Judgment affirmed, with direction.

All the Justices concur. John T. Norris, for plaintiff. D. W. Rountree, Paul P. Alcin, and Neel £ Neel, lor defendant.

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

Atkinson, J.

1. The special demurrers to the petition as amended, and to the answer, are without merit.

2. Where, in an action at law to recover a certain sum alleged to be due on several items of indebtedness, a verdict is rendered for the plaintiff m a stated sum of principal and interest, and a new trial is granted on certain grounds of the motion which relate to some of the particular items of indebtedness, and refused as to others, the court is without power, m ordering a new trial, to restrict the case to the issues bearing-on the items of indebtedness referred to in the grounds of the motion upon which a new trial is granted, to the exclusion of other issues made by the pleadings.

(a.) 'The order of reference to an auditor of so much of the case as was reserved m the order granting a new trial, and all subsequent procedure thereon, was erroneous. Direction is given that so much of the judgment granting a new trial as restricts the procedure to certain issues be vacated, and that a trial of the whole case be had on its merits.

Judgment affirmed, with direction.

All the Justices concur. John T. Norris, for plaintiff. D. W. Rountree, Paul P. Alcin, and Neel £ Neel, lor defendant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

77 S.E. 628, 139 Ga. 508, 1913 Ga. LEXIS 491, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/walker-v-jones-ga-1913.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack