Court Opinion

ID: 9564800
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 19:07:33.479631+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:40.798888
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
After careful consideration of the motion for rehearing, we are confident that our ruling that the judgment denying a motion for summary judgment is not the law of the case as to the meaning of the leases, or that the leases and other evidence made an issue of fact which a jury alone could decide, is correct. Our judgment is supported by the actions of opposing counsel in this case in moving for a directed verdict because there were no issues of fact, and the judge’s sustaining both motions and excusing the jury. Presumably the judge construed the former *445judgment denying a motion for summary judgment and held, whether erroneously or correctly, that it did not rule that there were issues of fact. This ruling, as requested, that there were no issues of fact, became the law of this case, whether right or wrong. It was not excepted to and became final; indeed it could not be excepted to by either attorney who procured it. Saturday v. Saturday, 224 Ga. 236 (161 SE2d 509).
We cannot hold that the State is estopped by procuring a summary judgment for taxes exclusive of the leases, because it was not what was asked for, and, as we understand it, each month is a tax-paying unit.
While our decision virtually destroys the judgment for a penalty, yet we could not under the statute direct that no penalty for being late be added to the taxes under the leases which we have held is demanded by terms of the leases.
As to four of the six leases which expressly say the amount payable thereunder is for the rental of personal property, and under our construction the other two, while not saying this means this, there is no basis for apportioning the amount paid for rental and the amount paid for other expenses of the lessor. We have held that all such expenses were incurred in order to make the leased property more attractive and thereby obtain a larger rental therefor.

The motion is denied and our decision is adhered to.

All the Justices concur. Undercofler and Frankum, JJ., disqualified.