Case ID: ga_77/html/0072-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Blandford, Justice.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The Athens Foundry and Machine Works vs. Bain.
    When a case is brought before this court upon the ground that the verdict of the jury is without evidence to support it, it is the right and duty of this court to review and weigh ail the evidence in the case, and it can make such judgment therein as is consistent with the law and justice of the case. When this case was formerly here, this court thought proper to adjudge that the plaintiff was entitled to recover under the facts. On a second trial no new facts were developed which changed the case in any essential particular, and a verdict for the plaintiff was demanded by the law and supported by the evidence.
    April 6, 1886.
    
      Res Ad judicata. Practice in Supreme Court. Verdict. Before Judge Hutchins. Clarke Superior Court. October Adjourned Term, 1885.
    This case will be found reported in 75 6s®., 718, where the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court below, holding that a verdict for the defendant was contrary to law and evidence. On the last trial, the jury found for the plaintiff $7,500. The motion for a new trial was based on the grounds that the verdict was contrary to law and evidence and the charge of the court, and because Ihe court refused certain requests to charge. The leading principles contained in these requests were,, first, that if the husband of the deceased could have avoided the injury by the use of ordinary care, his widow could not recover for his homicide; and second, that, even if the defendant may have been negligent in the employment of a negligent or incompetent blaster, and, although the blaster may have carried on the work in a negligent and dangerous manner, still the plaintiff could not recover if her husband knew all these facts and voluntarily continued in the defendant’s employment. The motion for a new trial was overruled, and the defendant excepted.
    Pope Barrow ; Alex. S. Erwin, for plaintiff in error.
    
      T. W. Rucker ; E. K. Lumpkin ; A. J. Cobb, for defendant.
   Blandford, Justice.

When this case was before this court at the last term, we set aside a verdict in favor of the plaintiff in error, because the same had no evidence to support it. The case is now here upon a similar state of facts in every essential particular, and the verdict of the jury, which we are now called on to review, having been rendered in accordance with the views of this court as expressed when this case was here before, it will not be disturbed.

When a case is brought before this court upon the ground that the verdict of the jury is without evidence to support it, this court has the right, and it is its duty, to review and weigh all the evidence in the case. The case is fully before the court, and it can make such judgment therein as is consistent with the law and justice of the case. And while the jury on the trial of the case must find the truth from the evidence submitted, yet the judge of the superior court., on motion for new trial, may review their finding, and this court may review the decision of the superior court judge ; and all this to the end that justice may be done.

We thought proper to adjudge, when this case was last before us, that Mrs. Bain was entitled to recover under the facts of the case. We think so now, as no new facts have been developed in the case.

It only remains for us to add that the verdict was demanded by the law as applicable to the facts of the case.

Judgment affirmed.