Herz v. H.B. Claflin Co.

• Decision Date: 08 July 1897
• Parties: HERZ et al. v. H. B. CLAFLIN CO. et al.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

29 S.E. 33

101 Ga. 615

HERZ et al. v. H. B. CLAFLIN CO. et al.

Supreme Court of Georgia

July 8, 1897

Syllabus by the Court.

1. Grounds of a motion for a new trial, in which exception is taken to the admission of evidence, and which contain a statement of the evidence objected to, but which do not state the objection which was made and overruled, cannot be considered in this court.

2. The same is true as to grounds of a motion for a new trial which state the ground of objection to evidence offered and admitted, but which do not, except by reference to the brief of evidence, set out or identify the evidence to which such objection is intended to apply.

3. The special questions submitted to the jury were framed in accordance with, and authorized by, the pleadings and evidence in the case.

4. There was sufficient evidence to support the verdict.

5. A motion for a new trial goes only to the verdict, and reaches only such errors of law and fact as contributed to the rendition of the verdict; and therefore errors committed by the court in the rendition of a decree or judgment cannot be reached by a motion for a new trial.

6. Where a motion for a new trial is made, but, before the determination thereof, a final decree or judgment, either in term time or vacation, is entered on the verdict, of which judgment or decree either party complains, exception thereto should be taken in the manner prescribed by law; and, if such exception is not duly taken within that time, error cannot be assigned upon rulings of the court resulting in such erroneous decree or judgment in a bill of exceptions afterwards sued out, for the purpose of bringing under review the judgment rendered on the motion for a new trial.

Error from superior court, Macon county; W. H. Fish, Judge.

Action by the H. B. Claflin Company and others against L. Herz and others. Plaintiffs had judgment, and defendants bring error. Affirmed.

Gustin Guerry & Hall and J. W. Haygood, for plaintiffs in error.

R. L Greer, H. C. McKenzie, and Hardeman, Davis & Turner, for defendants in error.

ATKINSON J.

1, 2. The repeated rulings of this court upon the questions of practice covered by the first two headnotes which precede this opinion render unnecessary an extended restatement of the reasons which have led us to the conclusions reached, and we will therefore content ourselves with illustrating them by extracts from the motion for new trial, which will show the application of these rules to the record in the present case. There were a number of grounds of exception taken which fall within the rule announced in the first headnote, all of which contained a mere general objection to testimony which was admitted. All of them being similar in this respect, one example only is presented, and that is the example furnished by the first ground of the motion for new trial. It was as follows: "That the court erred in admitting, over the objection of defendants' counsel, the testimony of the witness Fred. A. Powers, as follows: That the firm of I. & S Bing were subscribers to the Bradstreet Company that the firm of I. & S. Bing applied to the Bradstreet Company for information regarding the financial standing of Louis Herz, and that the firm received a statement in writing from said Bradstreet Company as to the financial condition of Louis Herz; that the firm of I. & S. Bing never had any transactions or dealings with the said Louis Herz before this time; that the firm placed implicit confidence in the statement, and consented to sell Louis Herz goods, believing his statement to be true; this firm would not have shipped goods to said Louis Herz had they not relied upon said statement, and would have extended him no credit whatever had they known the statement to be false; that this firm discovered the statement to be false on the 12th of September, 1893." It will be observed that there was no special reason submitted by way of objection to the evidence why it should be excluded by the court, and therefore none which this court can consider in reviewing the judgment of which complaint is made. It may have been objected to upon some ground which the court was authorized to overrule; and, the burden being upon the party alleging error to show it, it will be presumed that the objection actually made was not sound.

The twelfth ground of the motion will serve as an illustration of the ruling announced in the second headnote. The ground was as...