History
  • No items yet
midpage
Rubin v. Hardin
173 Ga. 127
Ga.
1931
Check Treatment
Hill, J.

1. An exception based upon the refusal of the court to award a nonsuit will not be considered, where, subsequently thereto, the case is submitted to the jury and, a verdict being rendered against the defendant, a motion for new trial is made which presents the complaint that the verdict is contrary to the evidence and without evidence to support it. Where a motion for new trial is based upon this ground, the' court will review the sufficiency of the evidence as a whole, in the light of the verdict, and will not merely consider the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s case to withstand a motion for nonsuit at the proper stage at which the motion was made. Atlantic &c. R. Co. v. Blalock, 8 Ga. App. 44 (68 *128S. E. 743); Farmers Union Warehouse &c. Co. v. Stewart, 138 Ga. 733 (75 S. E. 1131).

No. 8160. July 20, 1931.

2. The Supreme Court will not reverse a refusal to direct a verdict. Central of Ga. Ry. Co. v. Mote, 131 Ga. 166 (62 S. E. 164).

3. Under the ruling made when this case was formerly before this court, it was not error to admit in evidence the letter referred to in special ground 1 of the motion for new trial. Hardin v. Rubin, 169 Ga. 608 (151 S. E. 31) ; Civil Code (1910), § 5763.

4. The evidence authorized the verdict for the plaintiff.

5. The court did not err in refusing a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur. A. N. Durden, A. R. Ross, and D. D. Smith, for plaintiff in error. J. H. Milner and Will Ed Smith, contra. •

Case Details

Case Name: Rubin v. Hardin
Court Name: Supreme Court of Georgia
Date Published: Jul 20, 1931
Citation: 173 Ga. 127
Docket Number: No. 8160
Court Abbreviation: Ga.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.