Hollingsworth v. Howard
| Decision Date | 23 July 1901 |
| Citation | 39 S.E. 465,113 Ga. 1099 |
| Parties | HOLLINGSWORTH . v. HOWARD. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
NEW TRIAL—ADMISSION OF EVIDENCE—JOINT TORT FEASORS —JUDGMENT AGAINST ONE.
1. Admitting irrelevant testimony will not be held cause for a new trial, unless it appears that the same was of sufficient consequence to injuriously affect the party complaining thereof.
2. There may, in an action against joint tort feasors, be a lawful recovery against one only of them.
3. The evidence in the present case warranted the verdict.
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Error from superior court, Dekalb county.
Action by A. W. Howard against R. H. Hollingsworth and A. J. Almand. Verdict for plaintiff. From an order refusing a new trial as to Hollingsworth, he brings error. Affirmed.
R. W. Milner and H. M. Dorsey, for plaintiff in error.
J. K. Hines, for defendant in error.
An action was brought by A. W. Howard against R. H. Hollingsworth and A. J. Almand to recover damages alleged to have been sustained by the plaintiff on account of false representations made to him by the defendants to the effect that the Union Loan & Trust Company of Atlanta, a banking corporation which had a branch at Lithonia, where the parties to this case reside, was a solvent institution. Almand was president and Hollingsworth vice president of the branch bank. The petition alleged that, by means of their false representations, the plaintiff was induced to deposit in that bank a stated sum of money, which he lost because of the failure of the parent concern. It was in the petition also alleged that these representations were made "with intent to deceive" the plaintiff, and to induce him "to confide in, and extend credit to, and make deposits in, said bank, " and that they in fact "did deceive" him. There was a verdict in favor of the plaintiff against both defendants. They filed a motion for a new trial, which was granted as to Almand, but refused as to Hollingsworth, who thereupon sued out a bill of exceptions, and brought the case to this court. We shall confine our discussion to those grounds of the motion for a new trial which were insisted upon in the argument here.
1. Error is assigned upon admitting the testimony of one L. B. Norton, "to the effect that the defendant Hollingsworth had made certain representations to him (Norton) concerning the solvency of the Union Loan & Trust Company." Obviously, tills statement of the testimony alleged to have been inadmissible is too vague and indefinite to enablethis court to say that allowing its introduction was prejudicial to the plaintiff in error. It does not appear what the representations of Hollingsworth thus sought to be proved were. All we know is that the court permitted Norton to testify that Hollingsworth said something to him "concerning the solvency" of the bank. What this was does not appear. Neither the substance nor the tenor of the representations testified to is stated. While it would seem that any representation by Hollingsworth to Norton with respect to the condition of the bank, not known to or acted upon by Howard, would have been irrelevant, the mere fact that irrelevant testimony was admitted will not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Finley v. Southern Ry. Co.
... ... One or more may be found liable. Others may be adjudged not ... guilty of the tortuous act alleged. Hollingsworth v ... Howard, 113 Ga. 1099, 39 S.E. 465(2); W. U ... Telegraph Co. v. Griffeth, 111 Ga. 558, 36 S.E. 859, and ... citations. A plaintiff can sue ... ...
-
McGriff v. McGriff
... ... Marshall v ... Morris, 16 Ga. 368; Mayor, etc., of Gainesville v ... Caldwell, 81 Ga. 76, 7 S.E. 99; Hollingsworth v ... Howard, 113 Ga. 1099, 39 S.E. 465. But it was a ... self-serving act of the defendant in favor of his own right ... and title. It might, ... ...
-
Jacobs v. Rittenbaum
... ... S.E. 326; Austin v. Appling, 88 Ga. 54(5), 13 S.E ... 955; Chattahoochee Brick Co. v. Braswell, 92 Ga ... 631, 18 S.E. 1015; Hollingsworth v. Howard, 113 Ga ... 1099(2), 39 S.E. 465; Mashburn & Co. v. Dannenberg Co., ... 117 Ga. 567(13), 44 S.E. 97; National Bank of Savannah v ... ...
-
Mcgriff v. Mcgriff
...making the complaint. Marshall v. Morris, 16 Ga. 368; Mayor, etc., of Gainesville v. Caldwell, 81 Ga. 76, 7 S. E. 99; Hollingsworth v. Howard, 113 Ga. 1099, 39 S. E. 465. But it was a self-serving act of the defendant in favor of his own right and title. It might, and probably did. move the......