From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Holden v. CTC Finance Corp.

Court of Appeals of Georgia
Sep 21, 1965
112 Ga. App. 443 (Ga. Ct. App. 1965)

Opinion

41470.

ARGUED SEPTEMBER 9, 1965.

DECIDED SEPTEMBER 21, 1965. REHEARING DENIED OCTOBER 11, 1965.

Action for damages. Fulton Superior Court. Before Judge Manning, Emeritus.

Ray Gary, Vernon W. Duncan, for plaintiff in error.

Grant, Spears Duckworth, William G. Grant, contra.


The Act approved March 17, 1959 (Ga. L. 1959, pp. 353, 354), repealed Code § 6-1608 relating to the first grant of a new trial, and enacted a new § 6-1608 in lieu thereof by adding a proviso "that the trial judge shall state in all cases the ground, or grounds, upon which said new trial is granted and if said new trial is granted solely upon any one or more special grounds said grant of a new trial shall be reviewable by the appellate courts and shall be reversed if the trial judge committed harmful error in granting said motion on any special ground." Prior to the addition of this proviso to said Code section, the first grant of a new trial, even on a special ground, would not be disturbed unless the law and the facts required the verdict. Watson v. Equitable Mortgage Co., 112 Ga. 253 (1) ( 37 S.E. 363); Stricklin v. Brotherton, 136 Ga. 456 ( 71 S.E. 774). The purpose of this proviso is to require the trial judge to specify the grounds upon which the grant of a first new trial is predicated, so that if it be solely on the special grounds, a review thereof, and a reversal, if erroneous, could be had upon appeal. The matter of stating the ground, or grounds, upon which the first grant of a new trial is ordered is not discretionary but mandatory, and where, as in the present case, a motion for new trial on general and special grounds is granted and the statute is not complied with, even though inadvertently, the judgment will be reversed and the order granting the new trial be vacated and the case be remanded with direction that the trial judge in any subsequent order statute. See Code §§ 24-3901 (2), 6-1610; Finley v. Southern R. Co., 5 Ga. App. 722 (1) ( 64 S.E. 312). It is so ordered.

Judgment reversed with direction. Nichols, P. J., and Eberhardt, J., concur.

ARGUED SEPTEMBER 9, 1965 — DECIDED SEPTEMBER 21, 1965 — REHEARING DENIED OCTOBER 11, 1965.


Summaries of

Holden v. CTC Finance Corp.

Court of Appeals of Georgia
Sep 21, 1965
112 Ga. App. 443 (Ga. Ct. App. 1965)
Case details for

Holden v. CTC Finance Corp.

Case Details

Full title:HOLDEN v. CTC FINANCE CORPORATION

Court:Court of Appeals of Georgia

Date published: Sep 21, 1965

Citations

112 Ga. App. 443 (Ga. Ct. App. 1965)
145 S.E.2d 597

Citing Cases

CTC Finance Corp. v. Holden

DECIDED FEBRUARY 23, 1966. Certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Georgia — 112 Ga. App. 443 ( 145 S.E.2d…

United Family c. Co. v. Dekalb County

We are impressed with the correctness of the order and judgment of August 8, 1974, except that it does not…