Scope of verdict.

- Verdict must comprehend the whole issue or issues submitted to the jury. Wood v. Milly McGuire's Children, 17 Ga. 361, 63 Am. Dec. 246 (1855).

Verdict must conform to pleadings and must not be inconsistent. Miller v. Ray, 84 Ga. App. 251, 65 S.E.2d 923 (1951).

If a verdict and judgment are supported by neither pleadings nor proof, the verdict and judgment are illegal and void. Johnson v. Walton, 236 Ga. 675, 225 S.E.2d 55 (1976).

Relief cannot be granted for matter not alleged or prayed for and a verdict and judgment which award relief beyond such pleadings and prayer is illegal and subject to be set aside. This is the general rule in this state, and is based upon the principle that the court pronounces its decree secundum allegata et probata (according to what is alleged and proved). Barbee v. Barbee, 201 Ga. 763, 41 S.E.2d 126 (1947); Wade v. Wade, 122 Ga. 389, 149 S.E.2d 816 (1966); Pray v. Pray, 223 Ga. 215, 154 S.E.2d 208 (1967).

Effect of verdict's silence on issue.

- Verdict's silence on issue of pain and suffering demonstrates intent to award plaintiff nothing for this element of damage. McAfee v. Fickling & Walker Dev. Co., 123 Ga. App. 647, 182 S.E.2d 146 (1971).

Incomplete verdict.

- Verdict finding that the plaintiff was entitled to punitive damages but acknowledging that the jury was unable to determine the amount of such damages was an incomplete verdict. Kane v. Cohen, 182 Ga. App. 485, 356 S.E.2d 94 (1987).

Judge empowered to send jury back into deliberation to clarify verdict.

- When it is determined that verdict was ambiguous, uncertain, or did not cover issues in the case, it is not error for the trial judge to require the jury to return to the juror's room, under proper instructions, and make the juror's verdict certain. Lowery v. Morton, 200 Ga. 227, 36 S.E.2d 661 (1946).

Whenever a verdict is ambiguous and uncertain in the verdict's meaning, or does not cover a substantial issue made by the pleadings in the case upon which proof is offered, it is proper to have the jury retire again for the purpose of rendering another verdict, under proper instructions from the court. Colley v. Dillon, 158 Ga. App. 416, 280 S.E.2d 425 (1981).

Court cannot supply substantial omission in verdicts. Wood v. Milly McGuire's Children, 17 Ga. 361, 63 Am. Dec. 246 (1855); Mayo v. Keaton, 78 Ga. 125, 2 S.E. 687 (1886).

Gratuitous finding by jury on matters not raised by pleadings.

- When part of the verdict in a complaint for land was a gratuitous finding relating to establishment of a line, but was not in conflict with the first part of the verdict which was a finding in favor of the defendant, that part of the verdict upon the only issue that could have been submitted to the jury, a finding in favor of the defendant, was good and enforceable, and the remaining part of the verdict, dealing with matters not involving any issue raised by the pleadings, was beyond the legitimate province of the jury and would be disregarded as surplusage. Patterson v. Fountain, 188 Ga. 473, 4 S.E.2d 38 (1939).

Construction of general verdict.

- General verdict is to be construed in light of the pleadings, issues made by the evidence, and charge of the court; all presumptions are in the verdict's favor. Morris v. Bell, 100 Ga. App. 341, 111 S.E.2d 270 (1959); Price v. Georgia Indus. Realty Co., 132 Ga. App. 107, 207 S.E.2d 556 (1974).

What general verdict covers.

- When petition alleges both general damages and special damages, a general verdict covers both. Price v. Georgia Indus. Realty Co., 132 Ga. App. 107, 207 S.E.2d 556 (1974).

Complaint as to amount of verdict.

- There is no principle of law that will justify a defendant in complaining of a verdict against the defendant on the ground that the verdict should have been for a larger amount. Jones & Phillips, Inc. v. Patrick, 11 Ga. App. 67, 74 S.E. 700 (1912).

Effect of verdict when counts are good and bad.

- When there are two good counts in a declaration and one defective count, and evidence on the trial substantially supports allegation in the good counts, and a general verdict is rendered for the plaintiff, intendment of the law is that the jury found their verdict on the good counts and not on the defective count. Bradshaw v. Perdue, 12 Ga. 510 (1853).

Setting aside verdict.

- Verdict will be set aside as contrary to law when the verdict fails to cover all issues made by the pleadings and the proofs submitted in support thereof. Tompkins v. Corry, 14 Ga. 118 (1853); Pickron v. Garrett, 73 Ga. App. 61, 35 S.E.2d 540 (1945).

Verdict which failed to cover issues made by pleadings and which was too indefinite for enforcement should have been set aside on proper motion for that purpose, made during the term at which the verdict was rendered, though subsequent to the verdict's reception by the court and the verdict's entry upon the minutes. Abbott v. Roach, 113 Ga. 511, 38 S.E. 955 (1901).

Impropriety of verdict raiseable by motion for new trial.

- Argument that judgment is not authorized by verdict or warranted by pleadings is not a good ground of motion for new trial, but that the verdict does not cover or is contrary to the issues made by the pleadings is a question which may be raised by motion for new trial. Manry v. Stephens, 190 Ga. 305, 9 S.E.2d 58 (1940).

That a verdict is contrary to law and contrary to the issues made by the pleadings is a question which may be raised by a motion for new trial. Hubbard v. Whatley, 200 Ga. 751, 38 S.E.2d 738 (1946).

Statutory claim case.

- In trial of a statutory claim case, sole issue is whether property is subject or not subject to the fi. fa., and the verdict in such case, whether found by the jury or directed by the court, cannot stand unless the verdict is so phrased as to determine this issue with definiteness. Moseley v. Binford, 31 Ga. App. 513, 121 S.E. 127 (1924).

Verdict for one defendant against another.

- Verdict for one defendant against another defendant, when there are no pleadings or altercations in the case between the defendants, is void, especially when there is no verdict at all for the plaintiff against either, though the sole issues submitted were between the plaintiff and the defendants. Maples v. Hoggard, 58 Ga. 315 (1877).

Judgments when defendants joined in same action.

- There is no law authorizing separate judgments to be rendered by different tribunals against different defendants, and at different terms when the defendants are joined in the same action. Norris v. Pollard, 75 Ga. 358 (1885).

Entry of decree nunc pro tunc.

- Trial court had authority to enter divorce decree nunc pro tunc as of a date prior to death of a party when the jury had previously returned a verdict and the cause was ripe for judgment. Moore v. Moore, 229 Ga. 600, 193 S.E.2d 608 (1972).

Cure of defects in pleadings by verdict.

- Unless a pleading shows on the pleading's face that a cause of action does not in fact exist or is so utterly defective that it could not be amended at all, or the defect is of such character as renders unenforceable or meaningless a verdict and judgment based thereon, defects in the pleading are cured by the verdict on the theory that there is a conclusive presumption that the jury had before the jury sufficient evidence to authorize the verdict on every essential ingredient necessary for the verdict's rendition which would have been admissible or relevant under any proper amendment. Juneau v. Juneau, 98 Ga. App. 330, 105 S.E.2d 913 (1958).

Defendant cannot complain of verdict which the defendant has specifically requested. Stancil v. State, 158 Ga. App. 147, 279 S.E.2d 457 (1981).

Cited in Owen v. Anderson, 54 Ga. App. 53, 186 S.E. 864 (1936); Calhoun v. Babcock Bros. Lumber Co., 199 Ga. 171, 33 S.E.2d 430 (1945); Gibson v. Gibson, 204 Ga. 437, 49 S.E.2d 877 (1948); DOT v. Great S. Enters., Inc., 137 Ga. App. 710, 225 S.E.2d 80 (1976).

Am. Jur. 2d.

- 75B Am. Jur. 2d, Trial, § 1543 et seq.

15 Am. Jur. Pleading and Practice Forms, Judges, § 80.

C.J.S.

- 89 C.J.S., Trial, § 981 et seq.

ALR.

- Judgment against executor or administrator qualified in one state as binding upon an executor or administrator of the same decedent, qualified in another, 3 A.L.R. 64.

Power of legislature to set aside or impair judgment, 3 A.L.R. 450.

Power to enter judgment nunc pro tunc after death of party, 3 A.L.R. 1403; 68 A.L.R. 261.

Foreign judgment based upon or which fails to give effect to a judgment previously rendered at the forum or in a third jurisdiction, 44 A.L.R. 457; 53 A.L.R. 1146.

Decree abating nuisance as affecting owner not served with process, 63 A.L.R. 698.

Verdict as affected by agreement in advance among jurors to abide by less than unanimous vote, 73 A.L.R. 93.

Provision in judgment for taxes as regards future penalties, 93 A.L.R. 793.

Power of court to mold or amend verdict with respect to the parties for or against whom it was rendered, 106 A.L.R. 418.

Right of court to accept verdict upon one or more counts of an indictment or information when jury is unable to reach a verdict on all counts or is silent as to part of counts, and effect of such acceptance, 114 A.L.R. 1406.

Rule of practical construction as applicable to judgment, 120 A.L.R. 868.

Failure of one or more jurors to join in answer to special interrogatory or special verdict as affecting verdict, 155 A.L.R. 586.

Merger of earlier in later judgment rendered in the same jurisdiction, 158 A.L.R. 859.

Propriety of court questioning jury as to meaning of their verdict, or for purpose of correcting it in matters of form, 164 A.L.R. 989.

Coercive effect of verdict-urging by judge in civil case, 19 A.L.R.2d 1257.

Receipt of verdict in civil case in absence of trial judge, 20 A.L.R.2d 281.

Effect of verdict "for plaintiff" in action against multiple defendants, 47 A.L.R.2d 803.

Verdict for money judgment which finds for party for ambiguous or no amount, 49 A.L.R.2d 1328.

Judgment ambiguous or silent as to amount of recovery as defective for lack of certainty, 55 A.L.R.2d 723.

Effect on verdict in civil case of haste or shortness of time in which the jury reached it, 91 A.L.R.2d 1220.

Submission of special interrogatories in connection with general verdict under Federal Rule 49(b), and state counterparts, 6 A.L.R.3d 438.

Verdict-urging instructions in civil case stressing desirability and importance of agreement, 38 A.L.R.3d 1281.

Verdict-urging instructions in civil case commenting on weight of majority view or authorizing compromise, 41 A.L.R.3d 845.

Verdict-urging instructions in civil case admonishing jurors to refrain from intransigence, or reflecting on integrity or intelligence of jurors, 41 A.L.R.3d 1154.