Cutis v. Geiger

• Citation: 169 S.E. 127,176 Ga. 864
• Decision Date: 14 April 1933
• Docket Number: 9187.
• Parties: CUTIS v. GEIGER et al.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

169 S.E. 127

176 Ga. 864

CUTIS
v.
GEIGER et al.

No. 9187.

Supreme Court of Georgia

April 14, 1933

Syllabus by Editorial Staff.

Superior court judge has jurisdiction to revoke or modify order approving grounds for new trial at any time motion is still pending before him and until bill of exceptions is certified.

Ground for new trial disapproved, or not substantially approved, by trial judge, will be disregarded by reviewing court, but otherwise where ground is substantially approved.

In suit to cancel deed as fraudulent, acts and declarations of grantor showing fraudulent intent, whether occurring before or after execution of deed, are competent, but, unless grantee was present, should be restricted to question of grantor's intent.

Absent request, failure to charge on impeachment of witnesses held not error, notwithstanding case included evidence involving impeachment of witness.

Exception to entire charge will not be considered, unless whole charge is subject thereto.

In suit to cancel deed as fraudulent, charge held reversible error as authorizing cancellation of deed, although grantee paid value therefor and did not know of fraud, if grantee learned of fraud after acquiring deed.

Charge instructed that, if jury found grantor made any statement at the time, before, or afterward, relative to making the deed in question, it should not be chargeable to the grantee, unless grantee knew it or had reasonable grounds of suspicion that the note had been sued on, that is, he should not be chargeable with anything said by the grantor after the making of the deed, if the jury found that the grantor said anything, unless it was brought home to the grantee.

Error from Superior Court, De Kalb County; John B. Hutcheson, Judge.

Suit between L. H. Geiger and Marcus Cutis. Judgment for last named party, first named party's motion for a new trial was overruled, and first named party brings error.

Reversed.

Mozley & Gann, of Marietta, for plaintiff in error.

Grant & Long and Frank C. Tindall, all of Atlanta, for defendants in error.

Syllabus OPINION.

BELL, Justice.

1. A judge of the superior court has jurisdiction to revoke or modify an order approving the grounds of a motion for a new trial, at any time while the motion is still pending before him and until the bill of exceptions is certified. Vanover v. Turner, 41 Ga. 577 (2); Ford v. Holmes, 61 Ga. 419 (5); Tate v. Griffith, 83 Ga. 153 (2), 9 S.E. 719; Keys v. Bell, 111 Ga....