Davis v. Gaskins
| Decision Date | 12 January 1912 |
| Citation | 73 S.E. 579,137 Ga. 450 |
| Parties | DAVIS v. GASKINS et al. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
In an action by one seeking to set aside her deed and recover the land conveyed thereby because of her minority at the time it was executed, it was not error to permit her to testify on cross-examination that her husband had paid for a certain town lot and built a house thereon, and she did not know whether she or her husband had sold it, what she received therefor, and whether the proceeds were paid to her husband or to herself, over objection of her counsel that the deed to the house and lot was the highest evidence; the purpose of the testimony being to support the defendant's plea that the plaintiff, after she became of age, ratified her sale of the land sued for, and there being evidence tending to trace the proceeds of the sale into a house and lot which she sold after becoming of age, and authorizing the jury to infer that the plaintiff had knowledge of this fact.
(a) Nor was it error to admit in evidence the deed from the plaintiff, conveying to a purchaser the house and lot referred to in the preceding note, offered for the purpose of maintaining the plea of ratification. Especially is this true where the plaintiff made no offer to restore the money received from the sale of the land sued for.
A motion made in the trial court, which was overruled, to "exclude all of the testimony" of certain witnesses "tending to show that at any time after the making of this deed that any property came into her hands which may have been purchased or acquired by the operation of this money or any of this money," is not a complete ground of a motion for a new trial, and cannot be considered here. The motion should set out specifically the testimony sought to be ruled out.
The age of the plaintiff being an issue in the case, and a witness having testified that one of her children was born on a named date and the plaintiff was born previously thereto, even if for any reason assigned it was error to allow put in evidence a Bible, belonging to the witness, containing an entry showing the birth of her child to have been as she orally testified, such error was harmless; the oral testimony of the mother fixing the date of her child's age being nowhere contradicted.
It was not error to exclude testimony of the purchaser from the plaintiff of the land sued for to the effect that he had placed a...
To continue reading
Request your trial