Court Opinion

ID: 9865663
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 19:19:53.822207+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:46:57.626261
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION ROE REHEARING.
The defendant,. in his motion for rehearing, in ground one thereof contends that it should be granted: “Because the court in passing upon the general grounds, overlooked the fact, that there was no proof in the record that the plaintiff gave the notices required by the act of Congress, known as the emergency price control act of 1942, regulating rentals,, one before the filing of the dispossessory proceedings, and one of the filing, thereof, and therefore the verdict was contrary to the evidence and contrary to law, as decided by this.court in the case of DeRieux v. Bower, 73 Ga. App. 160 (35 S. E. 2d, 776); and overlooked the ruling in that case, as follows: (Decided subsequent to the argument of the instant case) ‘Therefore, because of the failure of the plaintiff landlord to give to the area rent office the notice required by *626the provisions of Section d(l), the verdict in his favor was contrary to law and the evidence, and the overruling of the general grounds of the motion for a new trial was error. As this ruling is controlling and conclusive in the case, the special grounds of the motion are not considered.’ It is true this specific question was not argued, but the general ground necessarily encompassed this question.” Neither by the pleading, the evidence or otherwise did the defendant claim or in any way mention in the trial court that the locality in which the land in question was situated was designated as a "“defense rental area,” or that any OPA regulations relative thereto had been promulgated. Even in this court no specific contentions were argued or even mentioned prior to the judgment rendered February 26, 1946, affirming the judgment of the trial court. The first specific contention argued in this court on such question was in the defendant’s motion for a rehearing, filed March 4, 1946. We cannot therefore say from the record that a verdict in favor of the plaintiff was contrary to the law and the evidence as contended by the defendant in his motion for a rehearing. The instant case is differentiated from the case of DeRieux v. Bower, 73 Ga. App. 160 (supra), cited in the motion for a rehearing, in at least one respect. In that case there was evidence that the land in question was in an area designated as being within a “defense rental area,” and a “regulation” was referred to by number and otherwise in accordance with the emergency price control act. Here there is nothing to show that the defendant claimed that the land in question was within any area designated as a “defense rental area” under the emergency price control act, nor has there been any regulation referred to in this case even' by number until the motion for rehearing heretofore referred to. There is nothing in the instant case to show that the defendant, by pleading, by evidence or otherwise specifically claimed any right under 'OPA regulations in the trial court. If he expected to assert any supposed right under OPA regulations, then in fairness to the trial court he should have raised the question in that court. Coley v. Westbrook, 206 Ark. 1111 (178 S. W. 2d, 991); May v. Lee, 57 Ga. App. 893 (197 S. E. 50). See U. S. v. Lederer, 140 Fed. 2d, 136, 139 (8, 9); McKinley v. U. S., 249 U. S. 397 (39 Sup. Ct. 324, 63 L. ed. 668). This and all *627other matters in the motion having been considered, the motion for rehearing is

Denied.

Broyles, O. J., and Gardner, 'J., concur.