Hammond v. Paul, 38406
| Decision Date | 06 April 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 38406,38406 |
| Citation | 249 Ga. 241,290 S.E.2d 54 |
| Parties | HAMMOND, et al. v. PAUL. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
John J. Andrews, Jr., Lexington, for Carrol H. Paul.
E. Freeman Leverett, Heard, Leverett & Adams, Elberton, for H. D. Hammond, Exr., et al.
H. D. Hammond, individually and as executor under the will of E. J. Hammond, deceased, and Eunice Clark Hammond brought this action to set aside a lease of real property and farm equipment entered into by the deceased, as lessor, and Paul, as lessee. The case was submitted to the jury on a single issue, namely, whether the deceased was of sound mind at the time the lease was made. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Paul, and the Hammonds appeal.
(1) The Hammonds contend that the verdict and judgment are contrary to law and to the evidence. There was ample testimony at trial to the effect that the deceased was of sound mind at the time the lease was made. Although there was some evidence to the contrary, the determination of the jury will not be disturbed on appeal, no material error of law appearing. Smith v. Merck, 206 Ga. 361(4), 57 S.E.2d 326 (1950).
In connection with these general grounds of appeal the Hammonds contend that the lease is void for lack of consideration. The case was tried on the single issue of mental competence. A careful examination of the record indicates that no motion for a directed verdict was made, nor was the issue of lack of consideration presented to the trial judge. 1 Issues never raised at trial will not be considered for the first time on appeal. Carter v. Pruitt, 235 Ga. 204, 219 S.E.2d 114 (1975).
(2) The Hammonds assert as error the allowance of testimony concerning the contents of the will of the deceased. It was not error to admit this testimony, as similar evidence of other witnesses was admitted without objection. Sikes v. Wilson, 74 Ga.App. 415(2), 39 S.E.2d 902 (1946). The Hammonds also contend that the admission of this testimony violated the best evidence rule, codified at Code Ann. § 38-203. The best evidence rule is inapplicable, as the content of the will was not in issue. Springer v. State, 238 Ga. 81, 230 S.E.2d 883 (1976); Jones v. State, 232 Ga. 771(5), 208 S.E.2d 825 (1974).
Judgment affirmed.
All the Justices concur.
1 Testimony of the lessee that he had not paid anything for the lease, standing alone, is not sufficient to raise the issue of consideration for the purpose of appeal.
Although the Hammonds filed a ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pfeiffer v. Georgia Dept. of Transp.
...Ga. 101, 103, 505 S.E.2d 473 (1998); Standard Guar. Ins. Co. v. Bundrage, 264 Ga. 632, 633, 452 S.E.2d 474 (1994); Hammond v. Paul, 249 Ga. 241, 242, 290 S.E.2d 54(1982); Carter v. Pruitt, 235 Ga. 204, 204, 219 S.E.2d 114 (1975); Duncan v. Duncan, 226 Ga. 605(2), 176 S.E.2d 88 (1970); Velke......
-
Cohran v. Carlin
...issue for the first time in this appeal. Since this argument was not raised below, it will not be considered here. Hammond v. Paul, 249 Ga. 241(1), 290 S.E.2d 54 (1982); Sawyer v. Citizens and Southern Nat. Bank, 164 Ga.App. 177, 183, 296 S.E.2d 134 (1982); Carter v. Pruitt, 235 Ga. 204, 21......
-
Hyles v. Cockrill
...not error to admit this testimony, as similar evidence of other witnesses was admitted without objection. [Cit.]" Hammond v. Paul, 249 Ga. 241, 242, 290 S.E.2d 54 (1982). See also Sikes v. Wilson, 74 Ga.App. 415, 39 S.E.2d 902 6. During appellant's cross-examination of the radiologist who m......
-
MARVEL ENTERPRISES, INC. v. WORLD WRESTLING FEDERATION …
...court. It is true that "[i]ssues never raised at trial will not be considered for the first time on appeal. [Cit.]" Hammond v. Paul, 249 Ga. 241(1), 290 S.E.2d 54 (1982). In this case, however, the issue of whether Marvel's exclusive right to manufacture WCW action figures continued after N......