Ealy v. Tolbert, 18335
| Decision Date | 13 October 1953 |
| Docket Number | No. 18335,18335 |
| Citation | 78 S.E.2d 26,210 Ga. 96 |
| Parties | EALY et al. v. TOLBERT et al. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Pierce Brothers, Augusta, for plaintiffs in error.
Killebrew & McGahee, Augusta, for defendants in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court.
Bessie Tolbert, individually and as executrix of the last will and testament of Nelson Tolbert, brought a petition against Clarion Ealy and Mattie Louis Ealy, in which she prayed for the cancellation of a deed executed by Nelson Tolbert, the plaintiff's husband, to the defendants, conveying a one-half interest in described real estate on the grounds that the deed was executed without any consideration, and was obtained by the fraudulent practice of the defendants, at a time when said Tolbert was feeble and confined to his bed and a complete invalid, during his last illness. The general and special demurrers of the defendants were overruled, and that judgment was affirmed by this court. Ealy v. Tolbert, 209 Ga. 575, 74 S.E.2d 867. On the trial of the case before the court and a jury, a verdict was returned in favor of the plaintiff. The defendants' motion for a new trial as amended was denied, and the case is here on a bill of exceptions assigning error on the order refusing a new trial. Held:
1. The first ground of the amended motion sets out a colloquy that took place on the trial between the defendants' counsel and the court relative to the right of the plaintiff to attack the recitals as to the considerations named in the deed from Tolbert to the defendants. At the end of the colloquy, the court said: No error is assigned on any ruling of the court, and the complaint in this ground is insufficient to constitute a ground of a motion for a new trial.
2. Grounds 2 and 3 set out colloquies between counsel for the defendants and the court, in which it is asserted that the court expressed an opinion as to the effect of the ruling of the Supreme Court settling the question of estoppel as against the defendants. These colloquies took place before the court's charge to the jury. The record in this case fails to show that, at the time the alleged remarks were made, counsel for the defendant either made objection to the same or moved for a mistrial. Coates v. State. 192 Ga. 130(3), 15 S.E.2d 240. Under this rule, grounds 2 and 3 of the amended motion...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dowis v. McCurdy, s. 40283
...trial. Thus, there are 'harmless errors' and we recognize it in many of the cases that come to us for decision. E. g., Ealy v. Tolbert, 210 Ga. 96(3), 78 S.E.2d 26; McCall v. State, 87 Ga.App. 185(4), 73 S.E.2d 245; Payne v. Norris, 88 Ga.App. 850, 853(2), 78 S.E.2d Since the establishment ......
-
Chalkley v. Ward, 44252
...no motion for a mistrial. Armstrong v. State, 181 Ga. 538, 539, 183 S.E. 67; Morris v. State, 185 Ga. 67(1), 194 S.E. 214; Ealy v. Tolbert, 210 Ga. 96(2), 78 S.E.2d 26. 6. Enumeration of error number 7 relative to a question directed by the court to the defendant while on the stand and the ......
-
Delta Corp. v. Knight, 40291
...party and since the errors in the charge were favorable to the complaining party, the errors as to him are harmless. Ealy v. Tolbert, 210 Ga. 96(3), 78 S.E.2d 26; Whitton v. Central of Ga.Ry. Co., 89 Ga.App. 304, 307(3), 79 S.E.2d 331; Payne v. Norris, 88 Ga.App. 850, 853(2), 78 S.E.2d 351;......
-
Pierce v. Pierce
...Ga. 553(5), 107 S.E. 530; Herndon v. State, 178 Ga. 832(6), 174 S.E. 597; Coates v. State, 192 Ga. 130(3), 15 S.E.2d 240; Ealy v. Tolbert, 210 Ga. 96(2), 78 S.E.2d 26". Morris v. State, 185 Ga. 67, 194 S.E. 214 Appellant's counsel having failed to make such a motion and having proceeded wit......