From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Smith v. Federated Mutual Implement Hardware Ins. Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia
Oct 22, 1971
185 S.E.2d 588 (Ga. Ct. App. 1971)

Opinion

46291.

ARGUED JUNE 4, 1971.

DECIDED OCTOBER 22, 1971.

Action on insurance policy. Fulton Civil Court. Before Judge Camp.

Miles B. Sams, for appellant.

Lokey Bowden, Chas. M. Lokey, for appellee.


Plaintiff in a suit to collect on a fire insurance policy appeals from the judgment and from the denial of his motion for new trial.

The trial judge sat without a jury in this case. At the close of evidence, both parties made motions for directed verdicts. (The motions were, of course, inappropriate since a verdict means the decision of a jury and not of a court. Black's Law Dictionary; 89 CJS 138, § 485). While the transcript seems to indicate that the judge granted the defendant's motion, the record contains only a simple judgment and this is the only point from which plaintiff may appeal. See Smith v. Sorrough, 226 Ga. 744 ( 177 S.E.2d 246). Therefore, the sole point for our consideration is whether the evidence supported the judgment.

Defendant introduced testimony that placed plaintiff at the scene in the early hours of the morning and shortly before the fire broke out. There was also expert testimony from three witnesses that the fire was deliberately set, probably with magnesium. Plaintiff denied that he had been at the scene. Defendant offered certified copies of the indictments, verdicts and sentences in two criminal cases in which plaintiff was convicted — the second one being a charge of arson involving the building in question here. This evidence was offered and received solely for the purpose of impeaching plaintiff's testimony and not as proof of the fact of arson. There was no error in admitting it. Code § 38-1804; Kaminsky v. Blackshear, 108 Ga. App. 492 ( 133 S.E.2d 441).

Defendant pleaded and offered evidence that plaintiff was not entitled to recover either under the terms of his insurance policy or under public policy. See Blackwell v. American Southern Ins. Co., 121 Ga. App. 671 ( 175 S.E.2d 160). The evidence was sufficient to support the judgment of the court.

Judgment affirmed. Eberhardt and Deen, JJ., concur. Whitman, J., not participating due to illness.

ARGUED JUNE 4, 1971 — DECIDED OCTOBER 22, 1971.


Summaries of

Smith v. Federated Mutual Implement Hardware Ins. Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia
Oct 22, 1971
185 S.E.2d 588 (Ga. Ct. App. 1971)
Case details for

Smith v. Federated Mutual Implement Hardware Ins. Co.

Case Details

Full title:SMITH v. FEDERATED MUTUAL IMPLEMENT HARDWARE INSURANCE COMPANY

Court:Court of Appeals of Georgia

Date published: Oct 22, 1971

Citations

185 S.E.2d 588 (Ga. Ct. App. 1971)
185 S.E.2d 588

Citing Cases

Allstate Ins. Co. v. Talbot

This has also been implicitly recognized in other cases. See generally Pennsylvania Millers Mut. Ins. Co. v.…

Southern Trust Ins. Co. v. Braner

Finally, no evidence of suspicious circumstances surrounding the occurrence of the fire was presented.…