Willis v. Persons

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Willis v. Persons

168 S.E. 905, 46 Ga. App. 661, 1933 Ga. App. LEXIS 166

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMarch 24, 1933

Docket22797

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 168 S.E. 905 (Willis v. Persons) 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

Willis v. Persons, 168 S.E. 905, 46 Ga. App. 661, 1933 Ga. App. LEXIS 166 (Ga. Ct. App. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

1. A ground of the motion for a new trial assigns error upon the refusal of the court to award a nonsuit. “Under repeated rulings of the Supreme Court and of this court, such an assignment can not be considered where, after such refusal, the case proceeded to a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, and the defendant’s motion for a new trial (to the overruling of which exception is taken) includes the ground that [662]*662the verdict was contrary to the evidence and without evidence to support it.” Barrow County Cotton Mills v. Lott, 44 Ga. App. 634 (2) (162 S. E. 827).

Decided March 24, 1933. B. Terry, for plaintiff in error. Charles F. McLaughlin Jr., Joseph O. McQehee, contra.

2. This was an action in trover to recover an automobile. On the trial the evidence showed that the title and the right of possession to the property was in the plaintiff, and that the automobile was found in the possession of the defendant and was sufficiently identified as the property sued for. The plaintiff elected to take a money verdict and the jury returned one in his favor for fifty dollars 'and costs. As to whether the automobile was worth that sum, the evidence was in sharp conflict, but this court is unable to hold that the verdict for that amount was not authorized by any evidence, and, the finding of the jury having been approved by the trial judge and no error of law appearing, this court is without authority to interfere.

Judgment affirmed.

MacIntyre cmd Guerry, JJ., concur.

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

Broyles, C. J.

1. A ground of the motion for a new trial assigns error upon the refusal of the court to award a nonsuit. “Under repeated rulings of the Supreme Court and of this court, such an assignment can not be considered where, after such refusal, the case proceeded to a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, and the defendant’s motion for a new trial (to the overruling of which exception is taken) includes the ground that [662]*662the verdict was contrary to the evidence and without evidence to support it.” Barrow County Cotton Mills v. Lott, 44 Ga. App. 634 (2) (162 S. E. 827).

Decided March 24, 1933. B. Terry, for plaintiff in error. Charles F. McLaughlin Jr., Joseph O. McQehee, contra.

2. This was an action in trover to recover an automobile. On the trial the evidence showed that the title and the right of possession to the property was in the plaintiff, and that the automobile was found in the possession of the defendant and was sufficiently identified as the property sued for. The plaintiff elected to take a money verdict and the jury returned one in his favor for fifty dollars 'and costs. As to whether the automobile was worth that sum, the evidence was in sharp conflict, but this court is unable to hold that the verdict for that amount was not authorized by any evidence, and, the finding of the jury having been approved by the trial judge and no error of law appearing, this court is without authority to interfere.

Judgment affirmed.

MacIntyre cmd Guerry, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

168 S.E. 905, 46 Ga. App. 661, 1933 Ga. App. LEXIS 166, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/willis-v-persons-gactapp-1933.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack