Legal Opinion

Insurance Co. of Pennsylvania v. Eubanks

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided February 20, 1919No. 9473Published

The -verdict not being demanded by the evidence, the grant of a first new trial will not. be disturbed. Certiorari; from Fulton superior court—Judge Pendleton. November 30, 1917.

1Opinion of the CourtBloodworth, J.

This ease comes to this court upon exceptions to the first grant of a new trial. In Weinkle v. Brunswick & Western R. Co., 107 Ga. 367 (33 S. E. 471), the Supreme Court said: “It may be now considered as settled that this court will not, under any circumstances, reverse a judgment granting a first new trial, whether the grant be general upon all the grounds of the motion or special upon one or more grounds only, or whether it be upon a ground which involves questions of evidence, or upon a ground which involves purely questions of law, unless it is made to appear that no other verdict than…

Also in this document: Concurrence.

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Weinkle & Sons v. Brunswick & Western RailroadSupreme Court of Georgia · 1899
  2. Southern Fertilizer & Chemical Co. v. PeacockCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1917
  3. Ellis v. SpellCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1917

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API