Legal Opinion

Credit Clearing House Adjustment Corp. v. Stanfield

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided January 19, 1931No. 20647PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBell, J.

1. “The power of the superior courts [and city courts] to grant new trials, being expressly conferred by statute, as well as arising from common-law principles, is not limited by any absolute and invariable rule as to the number of times of its allowable exercise, but the presumption of the legality of such grant, generally speaking, weakens upon each concurrent verdict.” Taylor v. Central R. Co., 79 Ga. 330 (6) (5 S. E. 114) ; Stewart v. Central of Georgia Ry. Co., 3 Ga. App. 397 (60 S. E. 1).

2. “After one such grant, a subsequent grant on account of alleged conflict between the evidence and…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Taylor v. Central Railroad & Banking Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1888
  2. Stewart v. Central of Georgia Railway Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1908
  3. Vassie v. Central of Georgia Railway Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1910

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. In Re the Estate of RandallIdaho Supreme Court · 1939
  2. Gledhill v. BrownCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1932
  3. Allen v. Southern Insurance Securities Corp.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1936
  4. Smith v. State Mutual Life InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1932

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

Powered by the Exa API