We find no abuse of discretion by the trial court in this decision. Simon v. McGee Plumbing c. Co., 164 Ga. App. 667 (1) ( 299 S.E.2d 388) (1982). 3.

"[T]he question before this court is not whether the verdict and the judgment of the trial court was merely authorized, but is whether a contrary judgment was demanded." Simon v. McGee Plumbing c. Co., 164 Ga. App. 667, 668 (2) ( 299 S.E.2d 388) (1982). OCGA § 9-11-50 (a). A judgment n.o.v. is properly granted only when there can be only one reasonable conclusion as to the proper judgment; if there is any evidentiary basis for the jury's verdict, viewing the evidence most favorably to the party who secured the verdict, it is not error to deny the motion.

"`"On consideration of an [appeal from] the denial of a motion for a judgment non obstante veredicto, the question before this court is not whether the verdict and judgment of the trial court was merely authorized, but is whether a contrary judgment was demanded. . ."'" [Cit.] "`"In giving consideration to a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict the court is concerned substantially with the same principles of law as are applicable upon consideration of the motion for directed verdict. . . . The question for determination is whether or not the evidence demands a verdict for movant [cits.] and if there be any evidence to support the verdict returned denial of the motion is proper and grant would constitute error [cits.]."' [Cits.]" Simon v. McGee Plumbing c. Co., 164 Ga. App. 667, 668-669 (2) ( 299 S.E.2d 388) (1982). "In considering the motion, the court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the party who secured the jury verdict.

After a jury trial on the amount of damages, judgment was entered against Flanders. Flanders' appeal of the trial court's order denying his motion to open default was unsuccessful. Simon v. McGee Plumbing c. Co., 164 Ga. App. 667 ( 299 S.E.2d 388) (1982). Flanders then filed the instant suit seeking to set aside the judgment and to recover actual and punitive damages for alleged fraudulent acts of GFB in obtaining the default.

There is nothing in the record to suggest excusable neglect or providential cause and we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court's determination that the facts in this case did not warrant opening the default. Simon v. McGee Plumbing c. Co., 164 Ga. App. 667, 668 (1) ( 299 S.E.2d 388) (1982). 3. Appellant's contention that damages for a complaint on an open account are not liquidated is also without merit.