Greyhound Corp. v. Clough
| Decision Date | 09 May 1955 |
| Docket Number | No. 18875,18875 |
| Citation | 211 Ga. 574,87 S.E.2d 387 |
| Parties | The GREYHOUND CORPORATION v. L. M. CLOUGH. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
L. M. Clough sued The Greyhound Corporation, d/b/a Florida Greyhound Lines, for damages in the Superior Court of Fulton County, alleging that he was injured and damaged by the defendant's negligence while riding as a passenger on one of its buses. The case resulted in a verdict and judgment for the defendant. The plaintiff excepted to a judgment denying his motion for a new trial, and sued out a writ of error to the Court of Appeals. That court reversed the trial court. Clough v. Greyhound Corporation, 91 Ga.App. 246, 85 S.E.2d 476. On application therefor, this court granted the writ of certiorari. The only ruling complained of in the application relates to the admission of certain testimony given by G. H. Young, the defendant's district passenger agent at Gainesville, Florida. On redirect examination of this witness, the following occurred: Counsel for defendant: 'Was there any charge outstanding against your driver when you got to the police station and reported this accident?' G. H. Young (the witness): 'No, there wasn't.' Counsel for plaintiff: 'I object to that, whether or not there was any charge outstanding is irrelevant and immaterial.' After a colloquy between the judge and counsel for the parties respecting the admissibility of the evidence objected to, but during which no other ground of objection to its admission was made, the court overruled the objection made by plaintiff's counsel. The Court of Appeals, with Judge Felton dissenting, held that the allowance of this testimony was erroneous and harmful, and that a new trial should have been granted because of its admission.
Gambrell, Harlan, Barwick, Russell & Smith, James C. Hill, Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.
A. Walton Nall, A. Paul Cadenhead, Atlanta, for defendant in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
1. This court, in considering the question of the grant of an application for the writ of certiorari, and, if granted, in disposing of the case, will consider only the rulings made by the Court of Appeals upon which error is assigned in the application for the writ. Certiorari Rule 45, Code, § 24-4549; Mitchell v. Owen, 159 Ga. 690, 127 S.E. 122; Simpson v. Bradley, 189 Ga. 316, 5 S.E.2d 893; Galfas v. Ailor, 206 Ga. 76, 55 S.E.2d 582; Trammell v. Throgmorton, 210 Ga. 659, 82 S.E.2d 140, and citations.
2. The overruling of an objection to the admission of testimony on the ground that it is "irrelevant, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Central of Georgia Ry. Co. v. Brower, 39287
...an assignment of error, and such assignment of error does not raise a question for the determination by this court. Greyhound Corp. v. Clough, 211 Ga. 574, 87 S.E.2d 387; McBride v. Johns, 73 Ga.App. 444(2), 36 S.E.2d 822; Goodrum v. Henton, 93 Ga.App. 592, 92 S.E.2d 590; Manning v. State, ......
-
Wilson v. State
...issue raised in this court and this court will not consider it. See Hogan v. Hogan, 196 Ga. 822(1), 28 S.E.2d 74; Greyhound Corp. v. Clough, 211 Ga. 574(2), 87 S.E.2d 387; Wilson v. State, 212 Ga. 157(4), 91 S.E.2d 16; Hicks v. State, 216 Ga. 574, 576, 118 S.E.2d 364; Newman v. State, 239 G......
-
Ryle v. Sliz
...260 S.E.2d 523; Hogan v. Hogan, 196 Ga. 822(1), 28 S.E.2d 74; Middleton v. Waters, 205 Ga. 847(4), 55 S.E.2d 359; Greyhound Corp. v. Clough, 211 Ga. 574(2), 87 S.E.2d 387, Dixie Belle Mills v. Specialty Machine Co., 217 Ga. 104, 112(5), 120 S.E.2d 771; Isley v. Little, 219 Ga. 23(7), 131 S.......
-
Consolidated Management Services, Inc. v. Halligan
...248(3), 119 S.E.2d 35 (1961); Clough v. Greyhound Corp., 91 Ga.App. 246(1), 85 S.E.2d 476 (1954), rev'd on other grounds, 211 Ga. 574, 87 S.E.2d 387 (1955). See also Webb v. McDaniel, 218 Ga. 366, 127 S.E.2d 900 (1962) (where, in a civil action concerning the defendant's right to inherit fr......