No. 8160 | Ga. | Jul 20, 1931
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
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" court="Ga." date_filed="1908-07-24" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/central-of-georgia-railway-co-v-mote-5576420?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="5576420">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" court="Ga." date_filed="1929-12-16" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/hardin-v-rubin-5587661?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="5587661">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.