Deal v. Lanier, 17650
| Decision Date | 16 January 1952 |
| Docket Number | No. 17650,17650 |
| Citation | 208 Ga. 615,68 S.E.2d 566 |
| Parties | DEAL v. LANIER. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
A. S. Dodd, Jr., Cohen Anderson, Statesboro, for plaintiff in error.
Fred T. Lanier, Linton A. Lanier, and Robert S. Lanier, all of Statesboro, for defendant, in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court.
1. The lower court having expressly disapproved ground one of the amended motion for new trial, it will not be dwelt with here. Grand Chapter of order of Eastern Star v. Wolfe, 175 Ga. 867, 166 S.E. 755; Phillips v. Smith, 175 Ga. 108, 165 S.E. 108; Andrews v. State, 196 Ga. 84, 26 S.E.2d 263; Singley v. State, 198 Ga. 212, 31 S.E.2d 349; Gunnells v. State, 199 Ga. 486(1), 34 S.E.2d 654, and cit.
2. The court, in charging on acquiescence, omitted the words 'by acts or declarations.' This was error, since the jury might have thought that mere passive acquiescence would suffice rather than acquiescence by acts or declarations. Cassels v. Mays, 147 Ga. 224, 93 S.E. 199; O'Neal v. Ward, 148 Ga. 62, 95 S.E. 709. However, the charge was helpful rather than harmful to the plaintiff, since the establishment of the line by acquiescence would have been a material benefit to the plaintiff, and, for this reason, the error was harmless. See Bohanon v. Bonn, 32 Ga. 390(2); Harrison v. Hester, 160 Ga. 865, 129 S.E. 528; Smith v. Tindol, 179 Ga. 801, 177 S.E. 588; Williams v. State, 180 Ga. 595, 180 S.E. 101; Foremost Dairy Products, Inc., v. Sawyer, 185 Ga. 702, 196 S.E. 436. Therefore the second special ground of the motion is without merit.
3. The other special grounds of the amended motion for new trial complain of a portion of the charge and the charge as a whole neither of which are meritorious. See Pulliam v. Adams, 142 Ga. 523, 83 S.E. 121; Baker v. State, 154 Ga. 716(3), 115 S.E. 119; Cutis v. Geiger, 176 Ga. 864(5), 169 S.E. 127, and cit.
4. The evidence supports the verdict, and the general grounds are without merit.
Judgment affirmed.
All the Justices concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Arrington v. Thompson, s. 18974
...grounds 4 and 5 of the amended motion for new trial were disapproved by the trial court, and will not be dealt with. Deal v. Lanier, 208 Ga. 615(1), 68 S.E.2d 566. Special ground 6 complains that the court erred in admitting over objection an unsigned carbon copy of a purported option made ......
-
Albert v. State, 20670
...by the trial judge, but were expressly disapproved by him, they cannot be considered by this court. See Code, § 70-301; Deal v. Lanier, 208 Ga. 615(1), 68 S.E.2d 566, and the several cases there cited. 3. In special ground 5, it is alleged that the trial judge erred in denying the defendant......