Case Name: LEWIS et al. v. EQUITABLE MORTGAGE CO.
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Decision Date: 1896-08-24
Citations: 99 Ga. 336
Docket Number: 
Parties: LEWIS et al. v. EQUITABLE MORTGAGE CO.
Judges: 
Reporter: Georgia Reports
Volume: 99
Pages: 336–350

Head Matter:
LEWIS et al. v. EQUITABLE MORTGAGE CO.
August 24, 1896.
Equitable petition. Before Judge Milner. Gordon superior court. August term, 1895.
In November, 1889, Jackson T. Lewis eonveyed 990 acres of land in Gordon county to B. W. Oomelison, W. M. Oomelison and D. P. Cline, the deed reciting a consideration of $15,000. The grantees in this deed then made written application to the Atlanta Trust & Banking Company to negotiate for them a loan -of $7,500, offering this land as security for the loan. The papers relating to the negotiation were forwarded by said company to the Equitable Mortgage Company, which was engaged in the business of lending money, with recommendation that it make the loan; and it did so, taking notes and a deed from the Comelisons and Cline to. secure their payment. In detfault' of payment, the Equitable Mortgage Company brought suit on the notes in May, 1891. In November thereafter’ i't amended its petition, making Lewis 'and his wife parties defendant and praying for equitable relief against them. It was alleged, in brief, that the loan was procured by false representations of the value of the land, and in pursuance of a scheme originated by Lewis to defraud the plaintiff, he having previously applied to the plaintiff for a loan on the land, but being afraid the land would not bear the loan he wanted, he resorted to the artifice, in collusion with the other defendants, of selling it to them for the nominal sum of $15,000, pretending that $8,000 of that amount had been paid in cash, when in fact no cash had been paid and only an insignificant piece of land had been conveyed to represent the cash consideration, and the land so .conveyed as security not really being worth over $3,000 or $4,000, and the borrowers being wholly insolvent and irresponsible; and that Lewis got the money so loaned by plaintiff, and invested it in certain described land in Bartow county, taking a bond for title to his wife. The object of the amendment was to- subject this Bartow county land to so much of plaintiff’s judgment as would remain unsatisfied after selling the Gordon county land thereunder. Lewis and wife made answers in which they denied .all charges of fraud, etc. There was a trial resulting in a verdict for the plaintiff. A motion by Lewis and wife for a new trial was overruled, which judgment was reversed. 94 'Qa. 574. After that decision further amendments to the petition were made; and there have been two trials, each resulting in a verdict in favor of Lewis and wife upon the issue made. Both of these verdicts were set aside by the trial judge. Ills last judgment granting a nersy trial on the grounds that the verdict was contrary to law and evidence is now excepted to by Lewis and wife.

Opinion:
Simmons, C. J.
Where a 'second verdict has been rendered on substantially t'he same issues of fact in favor of the same party, the rule of discretion applicable to the first grant of a new trial does not apply, and if at the last trial there was nothing objectionable in the rulings of the presiding judge, and the evidence, though conflicting, supported the second verdict, it should not be set aside. Veal et al. v. Robinson, 76 Ga. 838.
Judgment reversed.