HARPER v. MAYES, Executrix., 210 Ga. 183, 78 S.E.2.d 490 (1953)
Linked as:
Summary
Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur.
Summary
Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur.
Text
Ralph R. Quillian, contra.William A. Thomas, for plaintiff in error.
In an equitable suit filed against Elmer Wayne Harper on August 5, 1949, a verdict was rendered against him on June 6, 1951, and a judgment and decree entered therein on June 7, 1951. Harper presented the present proceeding as an extraordinary motion for new trial, upon which a rule nisi issued, and it was filed on April 17, 1953, based upon the grounds: (1) that "the verdict is contrary to the truth and is without evidence to support it," movant contending that the evidence as shown by the brief thereof attached to the motion as Exhibit AA was "false, fraudulent and perjured and untrue"; and (2) that "the verdict is contrary to law and principles of justice and equity as shown by Exhibit A-1 and attachments thereto," because the original affidavit of verification attached to the original petition in the case is a forgery; and (3) because the defendant had a good defense to the suit, which he was prevented from making because of illness at the time of trial. To the judgment denying this motion the plaintiff in error excepts. Held:
1. "Extraordinary motions for new trial are not favored." Coggeshall v. Park, 207 Ga. 177, 60 S. E. 2d 370); and it is too late after final judgment to object to an equitable petition because it was not duly verified. Union Lumber Co. v. Allen & Holmes, 208 Ga. 766 (69 S. E. 2d 573); s. c., 209 Ga. 361 (72 S. E. 2d 710); s. c., 209 Ga. 571 (74 S. E. 2d 866). While counsel for the plaintiff in error has been most persistent and energetic in his efforts to secure some relief for his client, unfortunately for him, as will appear from an examination of the various records in this court, his client lost his case before present counsel was employed.
6. Applying the foregoing rulings to the facts of this case, the trial judge did not err in denying the "extraordinary motion" and in refusing a new trial.
1953
Sponsored links
This document cites
- Supreme Court of Georgia - HARDY v. THE STATE., 209 Ga. 361, 72 S.E.2.d 723 (1952)
- Supreme Court of Georgia - HARPER v. MAYES, administratrix, et al., 209 Ga. 571, 74 S.E.2.d 866 (1953)
- Supreme Court of Georgia - HARPER v. MAYES, administratrix., 208 Ga. 766, 69 S.E.2.d 573 (1952)
- Supreme Court of Georgia - GUTHAS v. GUTHAS., 207 Ga. 177, 60 S.E.2.d 370 (1950)
See other documents that cite the same legislation
