Van Giesen v. Queen Insurance
Cases that cite this one
19 later published cases cite this decision.
- Berman v. Berman (Ga. 1973)
- Denney v. Tate (Ga. Ct. App. 1957)
- Wallace v. Speed (Ga. Ct. App. 1955)
- Seabolt v. Lewis (Ga. 1951)
- Davis v. Davis (Ga. 1940)
- Belk v. Cook (Ga. Ct. App. 1935)
- Murray v. Davidson (Ga. 1932)
- Lee v. Loveland (Ga. Ct. App. 1931)
- Sunbeam Heating Co. v. Mason (Ga. Ct. App. 1930)
- Carr v. Carr (Ga. 1924)
- Jones v. Moore (Utah 1923)
- Maynard v. American Railway Express Co. (Ga. Ct. App. 1922)
- Fairburn & Atlanta Railway & Electric Co. v. Latham (Ga. Ct. App. 1921)
- Cowart v. Strickland (Ga. 1919)
- Covin v. Cairo Banking Co. (Ga. Ct. App. 1919)
- Ballenger v. Ballenger (Ga. 1917)
- Callahan v. Athens Railway & Electric Co. (Ga. Ct. App. 1916)
- New v. Southern Railway Co. (Ga. 1911)
- Folds v. Harris (Ga. Ct. App. 1925)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
1. This being the first grant of a new trial, and the verdict not having been demanded absolutely by the evidence, this court, without undertaking to make any adjudication with respect to the reason assigned by the trial judge as the basis of his action, will affirm the judgment. Civil Code, §5585; Cox v. Grady, ante, 368 (64 S. E. 262); McCain v. College Park, 112 Ga. 701 (37 S. E. 971); Brantley Co. v. Bank of Waycross, Id. 532 (37 S. E. 737); Harvey y. Bowles, Id. 363 (37 S. E. 363); Weinkle v. Brunswick R. Co., 107 Ga. 367 (33 S. E. 471); Macon Street R. Co. v. Jones, 116 Ga. 351 (42 S. E. 468); Allen v. Lumpkin, Id. 777 (43 S. E. 54).
2. This rule applies although the judge who presided at the trial may have ceased to hold office before the hearing of the motion for new trial, and it was passed on by his successor.
Judgment affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.