The trial court did not err in overruling the motion for directed verdict and the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Atlanta Transit System v. Allen, 101 Ga. App. 751 ( 115 S.E.2d 479); Norris v. Coffee, 206 Ga. 759 (4) ( 58 S.E.2d 812); Emory University v. Lee, 97 Ga. App. 680 (1) ( 104 S.E.2d 234). In the case sub judice coverage was shown by the insurance policy, demand was promptly made, and the insurer refused to pay same within 60 days thereafter.
A judgment n.o.v. is a summary method for disposing of the entire litigation where it is obvious that the party against whom it is directed cannot under any circumstances win his case, and it does not lie in every instance where a motion for new trial would have been granted, even on the general grounds. McClelland v. Carmichael Tile Co., 94 Ga. App. 645 ( 96 S.E.2d 202); Atlanta Transit System v. Allen, 101 Ga. App. 751, 753 ( 115 S.E.2d 479); Salley v. Hogan, 104 Ga. App. 876 ( 123 S.E.2d 313). Since the first general grant of a new trial is so largely within the discretion of the trial judge, this court, to find whether it has been abused and the law and facts demand the verdict rendered, must measure the issues by that same strict standard which would apply had the situation been reversed, and had the plaintiff in error appealed from the denial of a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict following the denial of a motion to direct a verdict in his favor. That is to say, only in those cases where a motion for judgment n.o.v. would have been sustained if a litigant had lost his case will the grant of a first new trial be error where in fact he won it.