6. Special ground 7 complains that the trial court erred in overruling the defendant's motion for nonsuit made at the conclusion of the plaintiff's evidence and special ground 8 complains that the trial court erred in overruling his motion for a directed verdict. "A motion for a nonsuit cannot be passed on in a case where the movant has filed a motion for new trial, one ground of which complains that the verdict is contrary to the evidence and is without evidence to support it. Brannen v. Bowen, 81 Ga. App. 430, 431 ( 59 S.E.2d 7), and Hanover Fire Ins. Co. v. Elrod, 91 Ga. App. 403 (1) ( 85 S.E.2d 821)." Warwick Long Leaf Co. v. Zorn, 95 Ga. App. 344, 345 ( 98 S.E.2d 62).

1. "It is well settled in this State that `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 after verdict being for the plaintiff a motion for a new trial is made which presents the complaint that the verdict is contrary to the evidence and without evidence to support it.' Foremost Dairy Products Inc. v. Sawyer, 185 Ga. 702, 716 ( 196 S.E. 436)." Brannen v. Bowen, 81 Ga. App. 430, 431 ( 59 S.E.2d 7), and citations. See also Hanover Fire Ins. Co. v. Elrod, 91 Ga. App. 403 ( 85 S.E.2d 821), and Warwick Long Leaf Co. v. Zorn, 95 Ga. App. 344 ( 98 S.E.2d 62). Accordingly, in the present case, where the defendant filed a motion for new trial on the grounds that: ". . . Second. That the said verdict is contrary to the evidence in said case and without evidence to support it," no question is presented for decision by the assignment of error on the refusal to grant the defendant's motion for a nonsuit.

The last special ground charges that the trial court erred in failing to grant its motion for a nonsuit for all sums in excess of the amount admitted by it to be due the plaintiff under the contracts. A motion for a nonsuit can not be passed on in a case where the movant has filed a motion for new trial, one ground of which complains that the verdict is contrary to the evidence and is without evidence to support it. Brannen v. Bowen, 81 Ga. App. 430, 431 ( 59 S.E.2d 7), and Hanover Fire Ins. Co. v. Elrod, 91 Ga. App. 403 (1) ( 85 S.E.2d 821). Accordingly, this special ground of the motion for new trial cannot be considered. 3. The remaining special ground is but an amplification of the usual general grounds and will not be considered separately.

As to the denial of the motion for a nonsuit, it is well settled in this State that such is not error. In Brannen v. Bowen, 81 Ga. App. 430, 431 ( 59 S.E.2d 7), it is stated: "It is well settled in this State that `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 after verdict being for the plaintiff a motion for a new trial is made which presents the complaint that the verdict is contrary to the evidence and without evidence to support it.' Foremost Dairy Products Inc. v. Sawyer, 185 Ga. 702, 716 ( 196 S.E. 436). See also Harry Sommers Inc. v. Dickey, 41 Ga. App. 286 (1) ( 152 S.E. 590); Hall v. Smith, 41 Ga. App. 564 (1) ( 153 S.E. 778); First National Bank of Milledgeville v. Roberson, 53 Ga. App. 142, 144 ( 184 S.E. 887); Dixon v. Evans, 56 Ga. App. 583 (3) ( 193 S.E. 470); Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Sperry Flour Co., 63 Ga. App. 611, 614 ( 11 S.E.2d 809). The motion for nonsuit is, therefore, not considered, since the protestant, in his motion for new trial assigns error, `Because the verdict is . . . without ev