Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

134 Ga. 475

Buchanan v. James

Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided May 11, 1910

Supreme Court of Georgia · decided 1910-05-11

<p>Motion. Before Judge Worrill. Early superior court.</p>

Relies on Swain v. Macon Fire Insurance · Castellaw v. Blanchard · Southern Railway Co. v. James

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1910-05-11

How this case has been cited

Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently September 1980

1 federal appellate · 21 state decisions

7019101920193019401950196019701980decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Fish, C. J.

¶11. A motion for a new trial is a means of seeking to have a retrial or re-examination, in the same court, of an issue of fact, or of some part or portion thereof, after decision hy a jury, report of "a referee, or a decision hy the court thereon. It is an application for a retrial of' the facts of the case. 2 Thomp. Trials, § 2708; Castellano v. Blanchard, 106 Ga. 97 (31 S. E. 801); 5 Words & Phrases, 4788 et seq.

¶22. The grant of a nonsuit terminates the case without á final passing upon the issues of fact hy a jury, referee, or judge. It is a ruling hy the judge, that the plaintiff, under the evidence presented by him, has not. *476made out such a ease as to entitle liim to have the jury pass upon the issrtes of fact. It is a ruling of law by the judge, not a determination of the issues of fact. Under the practice in this State, it does not preclude the plaintiff from bringing another action, and seeking to ’ make out his case by the introduction of evidence on the trial thereof.

May 11, 1910.Motion. Before Judge Worrill. Early superior court.July 23, 1909.Pottle & Glessner and Park & Collins, for plaintiff.R. H. Sheffield and Pope & Bennet, for defendants.

¶33. It follows from the distinction which will appear from the two preceding headnotes that where the presiding judge grants a nonsuit, and thus terminates the case before a verdict or decision upon the issues of fact, a motion for a new trial is not the proper mode of.testing the correctness of such ruling. See Hudson v. Georgia Pacific Ry. Co., 85 Ga. 203 (11 S. E. 605); Central Railroad Co. v. Folds, 86 Ga. 42 (12 S. E. 216); Swain v. Macon Fire Ins. Co., 102 Ga. 96, 103 (29 S. E. 147); Southern Railway Co. v. James, 114 Ga. 198 (39 S. E. 849); City of Atlanta v. Miller, 125 Ga. 495 (54 S. E. 538).

¶43. There was no error in dismissing the motion for a new trial.

¶5Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.
/134/ga/475 · .json · Public domain