Case ID: ga_178/html/0083-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Beck, P. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

FEDERAL LAND BANK OF COLUMBIA v. GROSS.
    No. 9805.
    December 14, 1933.
    Rehearing denied December 30, 1933.
    
      
      J. Q. Newsom, for plaintiff. M. L. Gross, for defendant.
   Beck, P. J.

Federal Land Bank of Columbia brought complaint for land against M. L. Gross. At the trial, after the plaintiff had submitted its evidence and closed, the defendant made a motion for a nonsuit, and the court sustained this motion. Thereupon the plaintiff made a motion for a new trial, which, after hearing, the court overruled. To the judgment overruling the motion the defendant sued out a writ of error to this court.

1. This court can not entertain the case thus brought.here for review. Where a nonsuit is granted, as in this case, a motion for a new trial is not the proper remedy, but the plaintiff should sue out a direct bill of exceptions if he desires the appellate court to review the question as to whether or not the grant of a nonsuit was error. A new trial is a retrial in the same court of an issue or issues of fact after a verdict by a jury. 46 C. J. 58. While this precise definition is not embodied in our statute, the nature of a motion for a new trial is recognized in our decisions. A new trial is peculiarly a remedy to set aside a verdict of a jury, or the finding of a court where the court has the authority to grant a new trial in a case where the issues of fact and law are both submitted to the court. In such a case as that, the finding and holding by the court on questions of fact is the equivalent of a' verdict. But where there has been no verdict of a jury or the equivalent thereof, a motion for a new trial can not be the appropriate remedy to correct errors. This court has not directly ruled upon this question, but it has been ruled by other courts. “Since a new trial can be granted only after a trial has been had, it should not be moved after judgment by default, . . nor after dismissal for failure of plaintiff to appear, nor after a nonsuit.” 46 C. J. 62 (4), and cit.

2. In view of the holding that a. motion for a new trial after the grant of a nonsuit is not the proper remedy, no question is presented to this court for- decision.

Writ of error dismissed.

All live Justices concur, except Hill, J., ■ absent because of illness.