From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Edgeman v. Thomas

Court of Appeals of Georgia
Sep 20, 1974
209 S.E.2d 658 (Ga. Ct. App. 1974)

Opinion

49699, 49700.

ARGUED SEPTEMBER 4, 1974.

DECIDED SEPTEMBER 20, 1974. REHEARING DENIED OCTOBER 10, 1974.

Dispossessory warrant. Gwinnett Superior Court. Before Judge Pittard.

Harrison Garner, G. Hughel Harrison, for appellant.

William J. Porter, Jr., for appellees.


Plaintiff landlords instituted dispossessory proceedings against defendant tenant. The tenant counterclaimed for breach of duty to repair as provided for by the lease, claiming damage to her business ("ladies ready-to-wear") caused by water leaks, moisture, mold, mildew, foul odors, etc. The jury returned a verdict for the tenant in the amount of $18,150 less $2,100 unpaid rental, for a net verdict of $16,050. The trial court granted the landlords' motion for new trial on the ground that "the verdict of the jury is not supported by the evidence as to loss of profits claimed by defendant," but denied the landlords' motion for judgment n.o.v. The tenant appeals with a certificate of review from the granting of the new trial, and the landlords similarly cross appeal from the order denying the motion for judgment n.o.v. Held:

1. "The appellee courts have held time and again that the first grant of a motion for new trial will not be disturbed where there is any evidence to support the movant, unless a verdict for the opposite party is demanded. Code § 6-1608; Merriam v. City of Atlanta, 61 Ga. 222; Oliver v. Head, 60 Ga. App. 13 ( 2 S.E.2d 716); Cox v. Independent Life c. Ins. Co., 101 Ga. App. 211 (4) ( 113 S.E.2d 228); CTC Finance Corp. v. Holden, 221 Ga. 809 ( 147 S.E.2d 427); Martin v. Denson, 117 Ga. App. 288 ( 160 S.E.2d 210)." Winn Dixie, Inc. v. Whaley, 127 Ga. App. 381 (1) ( 193 S.E.2d 279). The verdict for the tenant was not demanded, and the grant of the new trial will not be disturbed. Wooten v. Nash, 126 Ga. App. 86 ( 190 S.E.2d 89).

2. While the evidence may not have supported the amount of the verdict returned, it did authorize a verdict for the tenant in some amount. There was evidence showing damage to the tenant's business caused by the landlords' failure to repair, and the record shows the dollar amounts of gross sales for the preceding four years and the average percentage of profit made by the tenant on those sales. This testimony meets the "reasonable certainty" test ( Crankshaw v. Stanley Homes, Inc., 131 Ga. App. 840 (2) ( 207 S.E.2d 241); Gray v. Nelson Irrigation, Inc., 132 Ga. App. 503)), and the trial court did not err in overruling the landlords' motions for directed verdict and for judgment n.o.v.

Judgment affirmed. Pannell, P. J., and Evans, J., concur.

ARGUED SEPTEMBER 4, 1974 — DECIDED SEPTEMBER 20, 1974 — REHEARING DENIED OCTOBER 10, 1974.


Summaries of

Edgeman v. Thomas

Court of Appeals of Georgia
Sep 20, 1974
209 S.E.2d 658 (Ga. Ct. App. 1974)
Case details for

Edgeman v. Thomas

Case Details

Full title:EDGEMAN v. THOMAS et al.; and vice versa

Court:Court of Appeals of Georgia

Date published: Sep 20, 1974

Citations

209 S.E.2d 658 (Ga. Ct. App. 1974)
209 S.E.2d 658

Citing Cases

State Farm Fire c. Co. v. Fordham

" The trial court did not err in denying defendant's motions for directed verdict as to the full amount.…

Florida East Coast Properties v. Davis

We cannot say the trial court abused its discretion in setting aside the jury's verdict. See Edgeman v.…