Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

76 Ga. 36

Creech v. Richards

Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided January 12, 1886

Supreme Court of Georgia · decided 1886-01-12

<p>1. A motion for new trial reaches the errors in the finding of the jury, or such errors of the court as may have led to the finding, but is not the proper method of correcting errors in a decree. Such errors can be reached only by direct exception thereto or by motion to correct them.</p> <p>2. It does not appear that there was any error in the decree m this case.</p> <p>(a.) One who leased homestead property from the head of the family for a term of years, and placed valuable improvements thereon had an insurable interest therein, and having insured the tenements on the property for his own benefit, upon the occurrence of a loss by fire, he alone was entitled to recover therefor.</p> <p>3. Where a case is tried on special issues of fact, the court should only submit to the jury such issues as, when taken in connection with the admitted facts in the pleadings, will enable him to render a full decree in the case. But the submission of improper issues does not bear on the errors assigned in this case.</p>

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1886-01-12

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently May 1966

6 state decisions

10188618901900191019201930194019501960decided

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 →

Blawdeord, Justice.

¶11. The plaintiff in error seeks to correct a decree by motion for new trial. If the decree was wrong, it is not competent to correct the same by motion for new trial; a motion for new trial reaches the errors in the finding of the jury, or such errors of the court as may have led to the finding, but an error in a decree can be reached alone by exception thereto, or motion to correct the same.

¶22. In looking at the record in this case, we are not satisfied that there was any error in the decree. Esterbrook leased the premises for a term of years. This gave himan insurable interest in the same, and he did insure the tenements thereon for his own benefit. When a loss occurred by fire, he alone was entitled to recover for such loss. His lease was good, he having leased the homestead property from the head of the family, and placed valuable improye.. ments thereon. Esterbrook was no trespasser on the property insured, but he went into possession of the property under lease from a person whom the law gave the right to lease the same.

¶33. There were several questions submitted to the jury by the court which were improper, but this does not bear on the error assigned in this case. The court should only submit such issues of fact to the jury, as, when taken in connection with the admitted facts in the pleading, will enable him to render a full decree in the case.

¶4Judgment affirmed.

/76/ga/36 · .json · Public domain