City of Dalton v. Smith, A93A1430
| Court | United States Court of Appeals (Georgia) |
| Writing for the Court | JOHNSON; McMURRAY, P.J., and BLACKBURN |
| Citation | 437 S.E.2d 827,210 Ga.App. 858 |
| Parties | CITY of DALTON v. SMITH et al. |
| Docket Number | No. A93A1430,A93A1430 |
| Decision Date | 28 October 1993 |
Page 827
v.
SMITH et al.
Reconsideration Denied Nov. 12, 1993.
Certiorari Denied Jan. 27, 1994.
Page 829
[210 Ga.App. 862] McCamy, Phillips, Tuggle & Fordham, James H. Phillips, Daniel T. Strain, Jr., Dalton, for appellant.
Minor, Bell & Neal, John T. Minor, III, Steven B. Farrow, Dalton, for appellees.
Teresa B. Smith, pro se.
[210 Ga.App. 858] JOHNSON, Judge.
The City of Dalton filed a petition to condemn land owned by Mark and Terry Smith. The superior court appointed a special master to conduct the condemnation proceeding. The special master awarded the Smiths $182,000 as the fair market value of the condemned property. The Smiths appealed to the superior court, challenging the special master's finding as to the property's value. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the Smiths in the amount of $271,126. The court entered final judgment on the verdict. The city appeals from that judgment.
1. The city argues that the court erred in charging the jury on the [210 Ga.App. 859] statute of frauds requirement that a contract concerning an interest in land must be in writing to be binding because the Smiths waived an affirmative defense based on the statute of frauds by failing to raise it in the pleadings. See Brantley Co. v. Simmons, 196 Ga.App. 233, 234, 395 S.E.2d 656 (1990). We cannot consider this argument because the trial transcript reveals that the city's objection to the statute of frauds charge was made on other grounds, "and on appeal only issues properly raised before the trial court will be considered." (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Zappa v. Auto. Precision Machinery, 205 Ga.App. 584, 585(4), 423 S.E.2d 286 (1992); Ramey v. Leisure, Ltd., 205 Ga.App. 128, 133(3), 421 S.E.2d 555 (1992). "Where an entirely different objection is presented on appeal, we cannot consider it because this is a court for review and correction of error committed in the trial court." (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Walls v. State, 204 Ga.App. 348, 349(2), 419 S.E.2d 344 (1992).
2. The city contends that the court erred in excluding from evidence a document purporting to grant the Smiths an easement across the condemned property to their remaining property. "Evidence must relate to the questions being tried by the jury and bear upon them either directly or indirectly. Irrelevant matter should be excluded." OCGA § 24-2-1; King Cotton, Ltd. v. Powers, 190 Ga.App. 845, 850(4), 380 S.E.2d 481 (1989). The document in question was executed by the city during the trial, over a year after the date the property was actually taken. The trial court properly excluded the document as irrelevant since the only question for decision in this case was the value of the property at the time of its actual taking. DeKalb County v. United Family Life Ins. Co., 235 Ga. 417, 418, 219 S.E.2d 707 (1975); Brookhaven Assoc. v. DeKalb County, 187 Ga.App. 749, 750(1), 371 S.E.2d 231 (1988); City of Atlanta v. West, 123 Ga.App. 255, 256-257(1), 180 S.E.2d 277 (1971).
3. In its third and fourth enumerations of error, the city contends that the court's jury charge regarding admissions in judicio was insufficient and that the court erred in refusing to give four of its requested charges on such admissions. "It is axiomatic that a jury charge need not be given in the exact language requested if the charge as given clearly covers the circumstances of the case. All that is necessary, provided the requested charge accurately states the relevant principles of law, is that these principles be fairly given to the jury in the general charge. When it can be determined that the charge actually given conveys correctly the intent of the law and is so framed as to be applied with understanding to the fact situation, denial of a request for a specific charge is not reversible error." (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Swint v. Smith, 204 Ga.App. 54, 55(2), 418 S.E.2d 375 (1992). Here, the court did not err in refusing to give the requested charges because the charge actually given regarding admissions[210 Ga.App. 860] in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Golden Peanut Co. v. Bass, A00A2362.
...360 S.E.2d 415 (1987) (whole court); see also Robinson v. MARTA, 197 Ga.App. 628(1), 399 S.E.2d 252 (1990); City of Dalton v. Smith, 210 Ga.App. 858, 860(5), 437 S.E.2d 827 (1993) However, there are other decisions of this Court which have held that a litigant must distinctly state the grou......
-
Whitley v. Gwinnett County, A95A2136
...has held many times that issues not properly raised in the trial court will not be considered on appeal. See City of Dalton v. Smith, 210 Ga.App. 858(1), 437 S.E.2d 827 (1993). "In order to raise on appeal contentions concerning admissibility of evidence the specific ground of objection mus......
-
Legacy Acad., Inc. v. Doles-Smith Enters., Inc., A17A2102
...authority in the trial court. Consequently, pretermitting whether the argument had merit, it was waived. See City of Dalton v. Smith , 210 Ga. App. 858, 859 (1), 437 S.E.2d 827 (1993) ("[O]n appeal only issues properly raised before the trial court will be considered.") (citations and punct......
-
Southern Ry. Co. v. Hand, A95A0082
...denial of a request for a specific charge is not reversible error." (Citation and punctuation omitted.) City of Dalton v. Smith, 210 Ga.App. 858, 859, 437 S.E.2d 827 5. Southern contends the trial court erred in admitting in toto Hand's medical records. However, the transcript is clear that......