Warren v. Mann

WARREN Et Al. v. MANN Et Al.

Warren v. Mann, 161 S.E.2d 894 (Ga. Ct. App. 1968)

Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia · State Appellate Courts
Decided: May 17, 1968
Docket: No. 43670
Judges: Jordan, Pannell, Deen
Citations: 161 S.E.2d 894117 Ga. App. 7871968 Ga. App. LEXIS 1236

Cited by 5

Opinion — Jordan

Jordan, Presiding Judge.

1. In a civil case a trial judge may-in his discretion grant a new trial without a transcript of the evidence and proceedings, either on motion of a party or ex mero motu. Ga. L. 1965, pp. 18, 30;

Code Ann.

§ 70-301. Absent a contrary showing this court will presume that he did consider the evidence in granting a motion on grounds requiring such consideration. See A. M. Kidder & Co. v. Clement A. Evans & Co., 117 Ga. App. 346 ( 160 SE2d 869 ). The grant of a new trial is appropriate when it appears to the trial judge that the refusal to take such action would be inconsistent with substantial justice. Ga. L. 1966, pp. 609, 664;

Code Ann.

§ 81A-161.

2. Appellate courts will not disturb the ruling of a trial judge acting in his discretion on the first grant of a new trial solely on general grounds, absent any showing by the appellant that the trial judge abused his discretion in granting it and that the law and facts require the verdict notwithstanding his judgment.

Code § 6-1608. See the discussion in CTC Finance Corp. v. Holden, 221 Ga. 809 ( 147 SE2d 427 ), with respect to the unqualified power of superior and city courts in respect to the grant of new trials, and the effect of the 1959 enactment (Ga. L. 1959, p. 353) on Code § 6-1608. Also, see Peak v. Cody, 113 Ga. App. 674, 675 (1, 2) ( 149 SE2d 519 );

Howard v. Biles, 117 Ga. App. 384, 385 (2) ( 160 SE2d 620 ). The effect and validity of § 50 (c) (1) of the Civil Practice Act, as amended (Ga. L. 1966, pp. 609, 657; 1967, pp. 226, 248;

Code Ann.

§ 81A-150 (c) (1)) requiring the trial court to specify the grounds on which a new trial is granted, in connection with the grant of a judgment n.o.v., is not in issue in the case sub judice.

*788 Argued May 8, 1968 Decided May 17, 1968.

Bullock, Yancey & Mitchell, Kyle Yancey, for appellants.

Heyman & Sizemore, Thomas Henry Nickerson, for appellees.

3. Where, as here, the plaintiffs in the lower court seek a reversal of the first grant of a new trial on motion of the defendants limited to general grounds, and it appears that the trial court, having directed a verdict for the plaintiffs, on which judgment was entered, granted a new trial solely on general grounds (as to which there is no dispute, although the order itself is silent as to the reason) without a transcript of the evidence, and there is no transcript before this court, and nothing appears from the pleadings or otherwise to show an abuse of discretion and to demand a verdict for the plaintiffs as directed by the trial court, this court will not disturb the judgment granting a new trial.

Code § 6-1608.

Judgment affirmed.

Pannell and Deen, JJ., concur.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 5 cases

View all citing references →

State Appellate Courts5

Relies on it most ⓘ

Blanchard v. Westview Cemetery, Inc.211 S.E.2d 135 (Ga. Ct. App. 1974)
Speer v. Gemco Elevator Co.214 S.E.2d 425 (Ga. Ct. App. 1975)
Hunt v. Denby197 S.E.2d 489 (Ga. Ct. App. 1973)
Whiteway Laundry & Dry Cleaners, Inc. v. Childs191 S.E.2d 454 (Ga. Ct. App. 1972)
Smith v. Clark181 S.E.2d 551 (Ga. Ct. App. 1971)

Most recent

Speer v. Gemco Elevator Co.214 S.E.2d 425 (Ga. Ct. App. 1975)
Blanchard v. Westview Cemetery, Inc.211 S.E.2d 135 (Ga. Ct. App. 1974)
Hunt v. Denby197 S.E.2d 489 (Ga. Ct. App. 1973)
Whiteway Laundry & Dry Cleaners, Inc. v. Childs191 S.E.2d 454 (Ga. Ct. App. 1972)
Smith v. Clark181 S.E.2d 551 (Ga. Ct. App. 1971)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 4

Depth	Case	Cited by
	CTC Fin. Corp. v. Holden, 147 S.E.2d 427 (Ga. 1966)	17
	Peak v. Cody, 149 S.E.2d 519 (Ga. Ct. App. 1966)	6
	Howard v. Biles, 160 S.E.2d 620 (Ga. Ct. App. 1968)	1
	A. M. Kidder & Co. v. Clement A. Evans & Co., 160 S.E.2d 859 (Ga. Ct. App. 1968)	9

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`x`	Add / remove the selected result from the download list
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list