Brooks v. Griffin
| Decision Date | 12 February 1912 |
| Docket Number | 3,658. |
| Citation | 73 S.E. 752,10 Ga.App. 497 |
| Parties | BROOKS v. GRIFFIN. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court.
The evidence was sufficient to authorize the conclusion that the claimant, though she was the wife of the defendant in fi fa., was the true owner of the horse levied upon. In considering transactions between husband and wife, slight circumstances, under certain conditions, may be sufficient to satisfy a jury of the existence of fraud; but in all such cases the bona fides of the transaction is to be determined by the jury. In the present case it cannot be said that the evidence demanded a finding other than that returned by the jury.
It is not error for a trial judge, in ruling upon the validity of objections to testimony, to repeat, as he remembers it, the substance of a material portion of the testimony of the witness then upon the stand, and to inquire of the witness whether the court's recollection of the testimony is correct. Nor does the fact that the judge, in ruling upon the admissibility of testimony, states its substance as being what has been testified, without, however, intimating in any way the weight or credit to be attached to it, sustain an assignment of error complaining that the court "intimated and expressed an opinion as to the facts of the case."
Evidence on the part of a purchaser of a horse that another person designated by him, had never owned it, is not objectionable as being the conclusion of the witness, but is to be treated as the statement of a substantive fact, which would naturally rest in the knowledge of the witness as the owner of the horse. As title to personal property may pass by mere delivery, the nature of the title of one in possession of personal property, under such circumstances, is not an opinion, but a matter of fact, resting peculiarly within the knowledge of the party in possession.
The excerpts from the charge of the court to which exceptions are taken are adjusted to the evidence, and, though one of these excerpts is erroneous, the exception is not addressed to the error, which is apparent, but not necessarily harmful. The requests to charge, so far as they were pertinent and appropriate, are covered by the general charge.
It will not be held reversible error, in the absence of a timely and appropriate request, to omit to instruct the jury upon the burden of proof. Central Railway Co. v. Manchester Mfg Co., 6 Ga.App. 254, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kingston v. State
...is not an opinion but is a matter of fact, resting peculiarly within his knowledge and he may testify as to it. Brooks v. Griffin, 10 Ga.App. 497(3), 73 S.E. 752. Here the witness was in possession of the vehicle when it was stolen, and he was competent to testify as to his title or ownersh......
-
Thompson v. State
... ... can speak and act only through its agents, and we think the ... question and answer were proper. See division 1 of this ... opinion. Brooks v. Griffin, 10 Ga.App. 497(3), 73 ... S.E. 752; Downs v. Brandon, 49 Ga.App. 198(1), 174 ... S.E. 647 ... 11 ... Special ... ...
-
Lazenby v. Bank
...the court does charge the jury upon this subject it must do so correctly. Cox v. McKinley, 10 Ga. App. 492, 73 S. E.751; Brooks v. Griffin, 10 Ga. App. 497, 73 S. E. 752. Ordinarily the burden of proof lies upon the plaintiff, who, alleging certain facts to exist, claims a right to recover ......
-
Lazenby v. Citizens' Bank
... ... jury upon this subject it must do so correctly. Cox v ... McKinley, 10 Ga.App. 492, 73 S.E. 751; Brooks v ... Griffin, 10 Ga.App. 497, 73 S.E. 752. Ordinarily the ... burden of proof lies upon the plaintiff, who, alleging ... certain facts to exist, ... ...