Auto Mut. Indem. Cot v. Campbell
| Decision Date | 10 September 1937 |
| Docket Number | No. 26262.,26262. |
| Citation | 192 S.E. 640,56 Ga.App. 400 |
| Parties | AUTO MUT. INDEMNITY COT. v. CAMPBELL. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by Editorial Staff.
Error from City Court of Savannah; Alex R. MacDonell, Judge.
Action by George Campbell against the Auto Mutual Indemnity Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant brings error.
Reversed.
Frank Hooper, Jr., of Atlanta, and Hester & Clark, of Savannah, for plaintiff in error.
O. E. Bright & Perry Brannen, of Savannah, for defendant in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court.
【[1, 2] 1. The defendant in a civil case is entitled to the opening and concluding argument when he introduces no evidence, and a denial of this right is error requiring the grant of a new trial. Moore v. Carey, 116 Ga. 28(5), 42 S.E. 258; New-some v. Harrell, 146 Ga. 139(2), 90 S.E. 855; Williamson v. Williamson, 176 Ga. 510, 168 S.E. 256; Widincamp v. Widincamp, 135 Ga. 644-646, 70 S.E. 566; Phelps v. Thurman, 74 Ga. 837(a); Chapman v. Atlanta & West Point R., 74 Ga. 547(a); Willett Seed Co. v. Kirkeby-Gundestrup Seed Co., 145 Ga. 559, 89 S.E. 486. This is true even though plaintiff calls the defendant to the stand for the purpose of examination, and the defendant, while on the stand, is interrogated by defendant's attorney. Martin v. Martin, 180 Ga. 782, 180 S.E. 851; Cable Piano Co. v. Parantha, 118 Ga. 913, 45 S.E. 787, are distinguishable. There is no obligation on the defendant, nor reason for one, to announce his intention not to introduce evidence before the plaintiff closes his evidence.
2. Where an insurance policy is issued to a motor, carrier under the motor carrier act of 1931 (Laws 1931, Ex.Sess., p. 99), or the motor common carriers act of 1931 (Laws 1931, p. 199), and the rules of the Public Service Commission, providing for insurance on a motor vehicle described in the policy and any motor vehicle substituted therefor, an indorsement on the policy substituting another vehicle, to take effect at a date in the future subsequently to the injury sued for, was irrelevant and immaterial to the issues in this case and should not have been admitted in evidence. The question whether the vehicle which it is alleged caused the damage was being used in the business of the carrier in the place of the one named in the policy was a question to be decided by the extraneous facts in the case, without reference to the indorsement.
3. The court did not commit error in referring to the person alleged to have been driving the truck which it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
TGM Ashley Lakes, Inc. v. Jennings, No. A03A1401.
...other party testifies." (Footnote omitted.) Hussey v. Hussey, 273 Ga. 735, 737(2), 545 S.E.2d 880 (2001); Auto Mut. Indem. Co. v. Campbell, 56 Ga.App. 400(1), 192 S.E. 640 (1937).2 In this case, at the time that the plaintiffs were putting on evidence the defendants had not admitted a prima......
-
Kia Motors America, Inc. v. Range, A05A1399.
...not to introduce evidence before the plaintiff closes his evidence. ( Citations omitted; emphasis supplied.) Auto Mut. Indem. Co. v. Campbell, 56 Ga.App. 400(1), 192 S.E. 640 (1937). Twenty-five years later, we repeated that the defendant's timing is unimportant under these circumstances. W......
- Auto Mut. Indem. Co. v. Campbell