Court Opinion

ID: 9865597
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 19:04:37.531996+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:40:31.441292
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION ROE REHEARING.
The movant insists that his contention that the verdict is void, as being too vague and uncertain to be enforced, was not only made in the brief of counsel but was covered by the general grounds of the motion for new trial. In the opinion originally rendered it was held that the verdict was not without evidence to support it. The general grounds attack it merely as contrary to evidence and without evidence to support it, against the weight of evidence, and contrary to law and the principles of justice and equity. Here, contrary to what apparently was true in the cases cited in the motion, there is no manner or method of attack that the verdict lacks clarity or certainty, but only that it was illegal because the findings as made were unauthorized by the evidence. Since there was testimony which did in fact support the finding as made, and since no fault was found with it when taken in connection with1 the pleadings (as have been set forth in the statement of facts), and since the decree (which seems indisputably clear, and on which no attack is made) follows the findings of the jury taken in connection with the pleadings, we do not think that the verdict can be set aside on the general grounds of the motion for new trial, even though, in order to enter a valid decree, it might have been required to construe the findings, as it was the duty of the court to do, in connection with the petition. Even where the point now insisted on has *84actually been made, the cases cited by the movant, Manget-Brannon Co. v. White Crown Fruit Jar Co., 20 Ga. App. 339 (93 S. E. 307); Roberts v. Citizens Bank & Trust Co., 33 Ga. App. 626 (127 S. E. 621), go no further than to hold that a verdict may be set aside only where it is not possible to frame a judgment in accordance therewith when and as construed with the pleadings. The ruling in Horton v. Wilkerson, 192 Ga. 508 (4) (16 S. E. 2d, 8) appears to be beside the point. There, the question was solely whether or not the verdict was supported by the evidence, and the court merely held that it was. Just so in Tompkins v. Corry, 14 Ga. 118 (2), where the court said that a verdict was contrary to law when wholly unsupported by evidence. Rehearing denied.