DocketNumber: 21524, 21536
Judges: Bkoyles
Filed Date: 7/15/1931
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 11/8/2024
1. In each of these cases the motion to dismiss the bill of exceptions, on the ground that, under the consolidation and trial together, “there was only one case to bring to this court which should have been done by one bill of exceptions,” is denied.
2. Where two actions in favor of the same plaintiffs against different claimants were pending in the same court, and the issues involved in them and the evidence relating thereto were so nearly identical as to render it practicable to try both cases together before the same jury and at the same time, it was competent for the court, with the consent of counsel, to pass an order that the eases be consolidated to the extent of trying them together. When the two cases were consolidated and tried together, and the jury rendered in favor of the plaintiff a separate verdict against each of the claimants, the proper practice was for each claimant to file a separate motion for a new trial. Western Assurance Co. v. Way, 98 Ga. 746 (27 S. E. 167) ; Dickey v. State, 101 Ga. 572 (28 S. E. 980); Brown v. L. & N. R. Co., 117 Ga. 222 (43 S. E. 498); Harris v. Gano, 117 Ga. 934 (44 S. E. 11).
In the instant cases, after they were consolidated and tried together, and
Judgments reversed.