State Highway Dept. v. Harrison

• Decision Date: 22 February 1967
• Docket Number: No. 1,No. 42260,42260,1
• Citation: 115 Ga.App. 349,154 S.E.2d 723
• Parties: STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT v. J. E. HARRISON, Jr
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

Page 723

154 S.E.2d 723

115 Ga.App. 349

STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT v. J. E. HARRISON, Jr.

No. 42260.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, Division No. 1.

Feb. 22, 1967.

Rehearing Denied March 6, 1967.

Arthur K. Bolton, Atty. Gen., Richard L. Chambers, Asst. Atty. Gen., Atlanta, D. Field Yow, Deputy Asst. Atty. Gen., Augusta, L. Clifford Adams, Deputy Asst. Atty. Gen., Elberton, Lon Fleming, Thomson, for appellant.

Robert E. Knox, Warren D. Evans, Thomson, for appellee.

Syllabus Opinion by the Court

PANNELL, Judge.

1. The refusal of the trial judge, upon objection, to rule out evidence to the effect that the federal government was participating with the state in the construction of the interstate road, if error (State Hwy. Dept. v. Lewallen, 113 Ga.App. 61, 147 S.E.2d 457; State Hwy. Dept. v. J. A. Worley & Co., Inc., 103 Ga.App. 25, 118 S.E.2d 298), was rendered harmless by the admission of further testimony, without objection, to substantially the same effect. See American Cas. Co. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 104 Ga.App. 337(2), 121 S.E.2d 806; Yancey v. Fid. & Cas. Co. of N.Y., 96 Ga.App. 476(2), 100 S.E.2d 653. Number 3 of the enumerated erros is without merit.

2. Where the trial court overruled an objection to testimony that during the construction of the improvement (estimated two years) muddy water would flow into a pond on the premises of the condemnee, such ruling, if error, was rendered harmless by the testimony of the condemnee, unobjected to, to the effect that 'during the construction, two years, two years thereafter, I think my back pond is going to be damaged a figure of about $840.00 per year, which comes to a figure of $3,360.00, * * *' Id., and where, in response to the objection, the trial judge states that he does not admit it generally, but admits it for a special purpose, and counsel for the objecting party, upon ascertaining the purpose for which it is to be admitted, makes no further objection to it, no question of error is raised in this court based upon the trial court's act in admitting it. (Bowers v. Southern Rwy. Co., 10 Ga.App. 367(6), 73 S.E. 677) and, where evidence is conditionally admitted and the court reserves a final ruling on its competency until a later stage of the trial, it is the duty of counsel objecting to the admission of such evidence to invoke a final ruling thereon, and upon his failure to do so the admission is not error. Rouse v. Fussell, 106 Ga.App. 259(1), 126 S.E.2d 830; Vun Cannon v. State, 208 Ga. 608, 611(2), 68 S.E.2d 586. Numbers 4 and 5 of the enumerated errors are therefore without merit.

3. A mere objection to evidence that it was incompetent or irrelevant or immaterial or without probative value or a conclusion is entirely too vague and indefinite for decision by the trial court or by the appellate court; Childers v. State, 100 Ga.App. 255, 259, 110 S.E.2d 697; Central of Ga. Rwy. v. Brower, 106 Ga.App. 340(4), 127 S.E.2d 33. Accordingly, Nos. 6 and 7 of the errors enumerated present no question for decision.

4. Where no final ruling as to the admissibility of the evidence is invoked in the trial court, no question for decision is presented to the reviewing court. Augusta Roofing & Metal Works, Inc. v. Clemmons, 97 Ga.App. 576(1), 103 S.E.2d 583.

Also where it appears the objecting party elicited similar evidence on cross examination, the error, if any, is harmless. Williams Bros. Groc. Co. v. Blanton, 105 Ga.App. 314(1), 124 S.E.2d 479. Number 9 of the enumerated errors is therefore without merit.

5. Where evidence as to the income producing qualities and capabilities of the land condemned is objected to, and the trial court instructs the jury that they are to consider this evidence only in arriving at a market value of the property taken and consequential damages to the remainder, there was no error in the admission of such evidence. See State Hwy. Dept. v. Noble, 114 Ga.App. 3, 7, 150 S.E.2d 174, 177 which holds '(t)hat the land produces items which may be sold in the market may be shown as affecting its market value. The presence or absence of water on the land may be shown in like manner. The extent of the land's productive capacity and the amount and nature of available water is relevant. It these are removed or lessened by the improvements made, that is relevant in showing consequential damage to the property remaining.'

6. Where motion is made to exclude the entire testimony of the witness, some of which is admissible, there is no error in overruling such motion. State Hwy. Dept. v. Whitehurst, 112 Ga.App. 877, 879(2), 146 S.E.2d 919; State Hwy. Dept. v. Jackson, 100 Ga.App. 704, 705(2) 112 S.E.2d 356. Enumerated error No. 10 is without...