Davis v. Peek
| Decision Date | 14 April 1931 |
| Docket Number | 21193. |
| Parties | DAVIS v. PEEK et al. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by Editorial Staff.
Failure to charge on burden of proof or making of prima facie case held not error, in absence of timely written request.
Ground for new trial not unqualifiedly approved by trial judge cannot be considered.
Ground for new trial complaining that verdict was contrary to evidence and without evidence to support it cannot be considered.
Erroneous expression of opinion by court that deeds admitted in evidence were immaterial held not ground for new trial, where no motion for mistrial was made nor opportunity afforded to withdraw statements.
Verdict authorized by some evidence and approved by trial judge must be affirmed, in absence of harmful error of law.
Error from Superior Court, Polk County; Price Edwards, Judge.
Proceedings between Mrs. B. J. Davis and M. T. Peek and others. Judgment for latter parties, and former party brings error.
Affirmed.
C. C Bunn and John K. Davis, both of Cedartown, for plaintiff in error.
E. S Ault and Wm. W. Mundy, both of Cedartown, for defendants in error.
Syllabus OPINION.
1. The court did not err in allowing the amendment to the protest to the return of the processioners, or in overruling the demurrer interposed to the amended protest.
2. The excerpts from the charge of the court, complained of in special grounds 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 of the motion for a new trial, when considered in the light of the facts of the case and the entire charge, disclose no reversible error.
3. In the absence of a timely written and appropriate request, the failure of the court to charge on the burden of proof or the making of a prima facie case on a certain feature of the case, as complained of in special ground 2 of the motion for a new trial, was not error.
4. The admission of the evidence set forth in special ground 10 of the motion was not harmful error for any reason assigned.
5. Special ground 11 of the motion is not unqualifiedly approved by the trial judge, and, therefore, cannot be considered by this court.
6. Special ground 12 of the motion is based upon the refusal of the court to grant the plaintiff's motion for a nonsuit as to a certain feature of the case (the alleged agreed land line as set up in the amended protest to the return of the processioners). The record shows that...
To continue reading
Request your trial