Title: Woods v. Lee
Citation: 390 So. 2d 1010
Docket Number: 51996
State: Mississippi
Issuer: Mississippi Supreme Court
Date: December 3, 1980

390 So. 2d 1010 (1980) Sidney D. WOODS v. Hollis R. LEE. No. 51996. Supreme Court of Mississippi. December 3, 1980. *1011 Walter W. Teel, Sekul, Hornsby, Wallace &amp; Teel, Biloxi, for appellant. Nicholas M. Haas, Bay St. Louis, for appellee. En Banc. SUGG, Justice, for the Court: Sidney D. Woods, appellant, filed suit in the Circuit Court of Hancock County seeking damages for the wrongful death of his minor son. The cause was tried in vacation by agreement of the parties whereupon the jury returned a verdict for the defendant. The jury verdict was filed December 7, 1977, and the following day the court granted appellant an additional ten days in which to file post trial motions. On December 9, 1977, appellant filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or in the alternative a motion for a new trial. The motion was taken under advisement by the trial judge who neither ruled on nor entered an order on the motion. Neither has a final judgment been rendered. After the trial court kept the motion under advisement for more than a year, appellant appealed by prepaying the costs on November 19, 1979. After the record was filed in this Court, appellee filed a motion to dismiss the appeal contending the appeal should have been perfected within six months and forty-five days after the trial judge took the motion under advisement. Appellee relies on sections 11-51-5 Mississippi Code Annotated (Supp. 1979) and 11-1-17 Mississippi Code Annotated (1972) in support of his position. Appellee argues appellant could appeal only within the forty-five days immediately following the expiration of six months from the time the trial judge took the motion under advisement. Appellant counters with the argument that he was entitled to take an appeal under section 11-1-17 Mississippi Code Annotated (1972) at any time after the expiration of six months following the trial judge's failure to rule on the motion, and was not required to appeal within the forty-five days immediately following the six months the trial judge had the motion under advisement. Sections 11-1-17 and 11-51-5 provide: Section 11-1-17 applies only to final judgments and does not apply to interlocutory orders. An order sustaining or overruling a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a motion for a new trial in the circuit court is an interlocutory order. Section 11-7-213 Mississippi Code Annotated (1972) authorizes an appeal from an order granting a new trial when the sole ground for the new trial is the excessiveness or inadequacy of the damages assessed. In Bowman v. Rutledge, 369 So. 2d 768 (Miss. 1979) we held that an appeal from an order granting a new trial on all of the issues in an automobile accident case was an interlocutory order, and this Court had no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal therefrom. In Farned v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Co., 263 So. 2d 790 (Miss. 1972) we held that, while an interlocutory appeal from an order or decree of the chancery court is authorized under section 11-51-7 Mississippi Code Annotated (1972) if the restrictive conditions of the statute are met, no appeal lies from a judgment of the circuit court except on an order for a new trial where the basis is the excessiveness or inadequacy of damages. In the case before the Court, the question of excessiveness or inadequacy of damages is not one of the grounds of plaintiff's motion and could not be because the jury verdict was for the defendant. If the trial judge had sustained the motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial, the order sustaining the motion would have been an interlocutory order and would not have been appealable under the statute and our decisions. Appellant has attempted to appeal under the provisions of section 11-1-17 which permits a party to treat the failure of a judge to rule on a matter within six months as an adverse ruling. If an order had been entered on the motion, it would have been an interlocutory order, so the appellant is attempting to do indirectly what he could not do directly; namely, appeal from an interlocutory order. Appellant's remedy was by writ of mandamus to compel the trial judge to rule on the motion rather than by appeal. We therefore dismiss the appeal and remand the case for further proceedings. If the trial judge does not rule on the motion after remand, appellant should apply for a writ of mandamus. When the motion is presented to the trial judge following remand he may either sustain or overrule the motion. If the motion is sustained a new trial will be granted, if it is overruled, a final judgment should be entered based on the jury verdict. In either event, after a final judgment is entered in the case then any aggrieved party may perfect an appeal from such final judgment. MOTION SUSTAINED. All Justices concur.