LEWIS et al. v. SEABOLT., 209 Ga. 253, 71 S.E.2.d 519
Linked as:
Summary
Judgment confirmed. All the Justices concur, except Atkinson, P. J., not participating.
Summary
Judgment confirmed. All the Justices concur, except Atkinson, P. J., not participating.
Text
1. The two special grounds of the motion for a new trial, numbered 4 and 5, complain of the admission of the testimony therein set out of the two named witnesses for the defendant, upon the ground that the witnesses were testifying to information gained from Mr. LaPrade; that the defendant's predecessor in title was Mr. LaPrade's wife; that title was not shown in him, and any statement which he made, and his act of pointing out a line constituted hearsay testimony. The trial court ruled, "I will let him testify as to what he saw, regardless of who showed it to him." In the testimony objected to the witnesses testified, not only to the fact that Mr. LaPrade had previously pointed out to them a certain black gum stump, and as to statements made by him at the time that it was on the line in question, but also as to the location of the black gum stump with respect to certain old roads, marks on the stump, the location of a described hickory tree, and as to certain distances from roads to trees and stumps, and their positions relative to each other, and other faces which were not derived from statements of Mr. LaPrade, but from the witnesses' own personal knowledge and observation. The objection having been urged to the testimony as a whole, a portion of which was clearly admissible, it was not reversible error to overrule the same. Atlanta Glass Co. v. Noizet, 207 Ga. 691, supra. The evidence being in conflict as to the location of the dividing line, and the jury having settled that issue by finding in favor of the defendant, which verdict is supported by some evidence, and has the approval of the trial judge, this court will not disturb the judgment overruling the general grounds of the motion for a new trial. Smith v. Smith, 206 Ga. 461 (6) (57 S. E. 2d, 611); Andrews v. Dilano, 206 Ga. 305 (3) (57 S. E. 2d, 77).
C. H. Edwards and G. Fred Kelley, for plaintiffs in error.
1952
Sponsored links
This document cites
- Supreme Court of Georgia - SEABOLT v. LEWIS et al., 207 Ga. 691, 63 S.E.2.d 894 (1951)
- Supreme Court of Georgia - PANTONE et al. v. PANTONE., 206 Ga. 305, 57 S.E.2.d 77
- Supreme Court of Georgia - SMITH et al. v. SMITH., 206 Ga. 461, 57 S.E.2.d 611 (1950)
See other documents that cite the same legislation
