Housing Authority of City of Atlanta v. Hard

• Decision Date: 26 June 1963
• Docket Number: No. 1,No. 39685,39685,1
• Citation: 132 S.E.2d 127,108 Ga.App. 111
• Parties: HOUSING AUTHORITY OF the CITY OF ATLANTA v. Elizabeth D. H. HARD et al
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

Page 127

132 S.E.2d 127

108 Ga.App. 111

HOUSING AUTHORITY OF the CITY OF ATLANTA v. Elizabeth D. H. HARD et al.

No. 39685.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, Division No. 1.

June 26, 1963.

King & Spaulding, Charles L. Gowen, David H. Gambrell, John Izard, Jr., Joseph R. White, Jr., Charles H. Kirbo, Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.

Hurt, Baird & Peek, J. Corbett Peek, Jr., Atlanta, for defendants in error.

Heyman, Abram, Young, Hicks & Maloof, John H. Hicks, Atlanta, amici curiae.

Syllabus Opinion by the Court

FELTON, Chief Judge.

1. The judgment of this court reversing the trial court has been reversed by the Supreme Court of Georgia on certiorari in Hard v. Housing Authority of the City of Atlanta, Georgia, 219 Ga. 74, 132 S.E.2d 25. In compliance with the direction of the Supreme Court the judgment of the trial court is affirmed on the question considered and decided by the Supreme Court.

2. It becomes necessary to decide another question originally raised in this court by the Housing Authority's appeal (106 Ga.App. 854, 128 S.E.2d 533), which it was not necessary to decide in view of our former ruling in the case. The Authority complained that the court restricted its right of cross-examination of a witness who had testified concerning the value of the condemned property. The kernel of the complaint was that the sale price of the condemned tract of land after the taking was relevant as to its value as of the time of the taking under the condemnation proceedings. The court ruled that such evidence was inadmissible. Whether or not the trial court was right in this ruling, the ruling was not harmful to the Authority because the witness swore that he did not know what the condemnee's land sold for after it was taken by the Authority.

Under the direction of the Supreme Court and under our authority to adjudicate the additional question not heretofore passed on the judgment of the trial court denying the Housing Authority's motion for a new trial is

Affirmed.

BELL and HALL, JJ., concur.