Allen v. Harris
| Decision Date | 27 March 1901 |
| Citation | 38 S.E. 322,113 Ga. 107 |
| Parties | ALLEN v. HARRIS. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. It is once more ruled that this court cannot undertake to determine whether or not a trial court erred in admitting testimony, when it does not appear what, if any, objection was made to the same at the time it was offered, or when the record does not disclose what the testimony alleged to have been improperly admitted was.
2. Points made in a bill of exceptions, but not argued here will be treated as having been abandoned.
3. An instruction appropriate to allegations made in a petition upon which the defendant goes to trial without demurrer cannot be regarded as erroneous.
4. Proof of what was paid for professional services is not without more, sufficient proof of their value. (a) The verdict in the present case was, as to one of the two findings embraced therein, supported by the evidence. As to the other, it was not.
Error from superior court, Hancock county; S. Reese, Judge.
Action by M. W. Harris against F. R. Allen. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant brings error. Affirmed on conditions.
Hunt & Merritt, for plaintiff in error.
Wm. H Burwell, for defendant in error.
The defendant in error, M. W. Harris, brought against Mrs. Florence R. Allen, in the superior court of Hancock county, an equitable petition to reform a deed, in which was also embraced a prayer for damages based on the ground that Mrs. Allen had been guilty of bad faith in refusing to voluntarily correct the deed, and stubbornly litigious in the matter. There being no demurrer to the petition, the case went to trial upon its merits. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, finding that the deed be reformed as prayed for, and that he recover of the defendant damages in the sum of $203. Thereupon Mrs. Allen made a motion for a new trial, and, the same having been overruled, she excepted.
1. In two of the grounds of the motion, error is assigned upon admitting evidence. In neither of these grounds is it stated what, if any, objection was made to the evidence at the time it was offered, and one of them fails altogether to disclose what the testimony objected to was. It requires no argument nor the citation of authority to show that these two grounds present no question for determination.
2. Another ground of the motion alleges error in refusing to give in charge a specified written request. As counsel for the plaintiff in error did not argue before us the point thus raised, it will be treated as having been abandoned. See Laffitte v. State, 105 Ga. 595, 31 S.E. 540, and cases cited.
3. Complaint is also made that the court gave in charge to the jury the law embraced in section 3796 of the Civil Code which prescribes when the expenses of litigation may be allowed as damages. The giving of this charge is alleged to have...
To continue reading
Request your trial