DATE OF JUDGMENT: 06/05/96 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. LAMAR PICKARD COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: CLAIBORNE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
Before Sullivan, P.j., Banks And Mills, JJ.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Mills, Justice
NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS
¶1. On December 27, 1985, Elbert Turner was involved in an automobile accident. As a result of this accident, Turner filed a civil action against Wells Fargo Armored Service Corporation, Herman Ludvigsen, Pickens Brothers Lumber Company, Inc., and James Pickens. At trial a directed verdict was entered in favor of Pickens Brothers. The jury returned a verdict of $3, 461,082 against Wells Fargo, Ludvigsen, and Pickens. The trial court reduced the verdict to $3,416,090.
¶2. The defendants appealed and in 1989 this Court reversed and remanded for a new trial as to liability and damages against Pickens and affirmed as to the liability against Wells Fargo and Ludvigsen. Wells Fargo Armored Serv. Corp. v. Turner, 543 So. 2d 154 (Miss. 1989). This Court also vacated and remitted the judgment from $3,416,090 to $850,000. Turner, 543 So. 2d at 159-60. Wells Fargo paid the remittitur, which Turner accepted, and a satisfaction of the judgment was entered in the Circuit Court of Claiborne County, Mississippi.
¶3. Turner now claims that because this Court reversed and remanded for a new trial as to Pickens, he can sue Pickens for the rest of his damages. Pickens asserts that Turner has already received full satisfaction of his claim. The trial court held that Turner concluded the case when he accepted the remittitur, and thus, should not be able to bring suit against Pickens. Aggrieved, Turner brings this appeal.
I. WHETHER THIS APPEAL SHOULD BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION BECAUSE TURNER FAILED TO FOLLOW MISSISSIPPI RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE, RULE 4(g)?
¶4. We do not discuss the jurisdictional issue presented on this appeal since this issue has been previously addressed by order of this Court denying the Appellee's Motion to Dismiss.
II. WHETHER TURNER'S ACCEPTANCE OF THE REMITTITUR ACTED AS A COMPLETE AND FINAL SATISFACTION AS TO ALL DEFENDANTS FOR THE DAMAGES ...