Mrs. Frаnkie D. Curl brought suit to set aside the foreclosure sale of her house or, in the alternative, for
*843
damages arising from wrongful foreclosure. In
Curl v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn. of Gainesville,
1. In the first enumeration оf error, she argues that the trial court erred in оverruling her motion for directed verdict. The direction of a verdict is proper only where there is ho conflict in the evidence as to any material issue and the evidence introducеd, with air reasonable deductions therefrom, shall demand a particular verdict. Code Ann. § 81A-150 (a). E.g.,
State Farm Mut. &c. Ins. Co. v. Snyder,
2. In the second enumeration of error, Curl argues that the trial court erred in overruling her motion for new trial, in that the verdict is so small as to justify an inference of gross mistake or undue bias, аs specified in Code § 105-2015.
The appellant’s prayers for relief were couched in the аlternative. She sought to set aside the foreclosure sale and cancel the deed undеr power given to the purchaser at the sale; or, in the alternative, she sought general dаmages for loss of credit standing, loss of community reputation, and mental pain and aggravation (Code § 105-2003), and, in the alternative, additional damаges for the loss of equity in her house and punitive damages (Code § 105-2002).
Questions concerning the amount of damages to be awarded for mental рain and suffering under Code § 105-2003, and as punitive damages under Code § 105-2002, are for the enlightened conscience of the jury.
Baldwin v. Davis,
There is nothing in the record to justify an inference of gross mistake or undue bias on the part of the jury in reaching their verdict. Therefore, we are unable to hold that the verdict is inadequate as a matter of law. Davis v. Camp Concrete Products Co., supra.
Judgment affirmed.