Court Opinion

ID: 9865569
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 19:01:14.865588+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:40:01.959739
License: Public Domain

*437ON MOTION EOR REHEARING.
The defendant in error insists that, both sides having made a motion to direct a verdict, neither party can complain that the court erred in directing a verdict. In support of this contention, Mims v. Johnson, 8 Ga. App. 850 (70 S. E. 139), and Groover v. Savannah Bank & Trust Co., 60 Ga. App. 357 (3 S. E. 2d, 745), are cited. Each of those eases is based on a “consent” or an “agreement” that a verdict be directed. In the instant case, the attorney for the claimant moved for a directed verdict, and the attorney for the executor made a similar motion. The fact that, upon the trial, each party moves for the direction of a verdict in his favor does not, without more, amount to a consent by both parties that the case should be disposed of by the direction of a verdict for one side or the other. Riley v. London Guaranty & Accident Co., 27 Ga. App. 686 (2) (109 S. E. 676); Gross v. Butler, 48 Ga. App. 750 (5) (173 S. E. 866); Laurens Glass Works v. Childs, 49 Ga. App. 590 (5) (176 S. E. 665); Broadhurst v. Hill, 137 Ga. 833, 841 (74 S. E. 422).