Hudson v. Miller
| Decision Date | 19 May 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 1,No. 53440,53440,1 |
| Citation | 142 Ga.App. 331,235 S.E.2d 773 |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Thad HUDSON v. T. E. MILLER et al |
Robert Benham, Cartersville, for appellant.
Araguel & Sanders, Jerry D. Sanders, Columbus, Carlton S. Brown, Lumpkin, for appellees.
This case is here on appeal from the finding of the jury in favor of the defendants in an action by a landowner brought against purchasers of part of his land seeking damages on the grounds of alleged fraud in the transaction involving the sale and purchase of his land. The alleged fraud, in part, consisted of alleged representation that the plaintiff was about to be foreclosed upon by the holder of a mortgage on his land, which plaintiff alleged was false and which he relied upon.
1. Complaint is made that certain correspondence and a memorandum of a telephone call between plaintiff and Georgia Development Authority, an endorser and guarantor on his note for which the mortgage was given to secure, were admitted over plaintiff's objection. All except one of such items of correspondence were copies of letters written plaintiff by the endorser. Their primary purpose was to make demand for payment on the mortgage or demand for reimbursement of payments made by the endorser. The exception was one original letter by plaintiff to the endorser. All of the letters were submitted as defendant's Exhibit No. 6 and objected to in toto on the grounds that they contained hearsay, conclusions, were irrelevant and immaterial, not the highest and best evidence, and of no probative value. That evidence is irrelevant and immaterial is no valid ground of objection. Shouse v. State 231 Ga. 716, 203 S.E.2d 537. It further appears that some of the letters were not subject to any of the other grounds of objection. Some were subject to some grounds but not others. Under these circumstances there was no error in overruling the objection as made, the objectionable letters or portions of letters in the group objected to not being pointed out with particularity and some of the evidence objected to being admissible. Jones v. Blackburn, 75 Ga.App. 791(3), 44 S.E.2d 555; Ogletree v. State, 66 Ga.App. 49(3), 16 S.E.2d 882.
2. After the voir dire questioning by counsel and the court and after the jury had been chosen it was discovered one of the jurors chosen had in the past been employed by one of the defendants but was not presently employed. After questioning, the trial judge permitted him to serve and found that he had truthfully answered all questions asked by counsel and by the court. We find no error here as the record does not support the enumeration that this juror was an employee of either defendant.
3. During the progress of the trial, the plaintiff was asked by counsel, referring to plaintiff's land at the time of the alleged fraudulent sale, "Now, what was the fair market value of that land at that time." Upon objection made by opposing counsel, the court remarked, Counsel for plaintiff then stated, "Of course, I submit to the court, your Honor, that as an owner he is competent to testify to the value of the land,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wilson v. State
...91 S.E.2d 16; Hicks v. State, 216 Ga. 574, 576, 118 S.E.2d 364; Newman v. State, 239 Ga. 329, 330, 236 S.E.2d 673; Hudson v. Miller, 142 Ga.App. 331(1), 235 S.E.2d 773. If a party urges a general objection, such as that stated here ("improper"), he must specifically show at trial wherein th......
-
Ryle v. Sliz
...or by the appellate court." State Highway v. Harrison, 115 Ga.App. 349(3), 154 S.E.2d 723 (Emphasis supplied); accord: Hudson v. Miller, 142 Ga.App. 331(1), 235 S.E.2d 773; Gwinnett Commercial Bank v. Blake, 151 Ga.App. 578, 581, 260 S.E.2d 523; Hogan v. Hogan, 196 Ga. 822(1), 28 S.E.2d 74;......
-
Garrett v. State
...grounds and not made with that degree of particularity sufficient to point out the specific rule of evidence violated. Hudson v. Miller, 142 Ga.App. 331(1), 235 S.E.2d 773. 3. In his fifth enumeration of error, Garrett urges that it was error for the trial court to disallow a hypothetical q......
-
Gwinnett Commercial Bank v. Flake
...that the document included hearsay. "That evidence is irrelevant and immaterial is no valid ground of objection." Hudson v. Miller, 142 Ga.App. 331(1), 235 S.E.2d 773, 774. The court drew counsel's attention to this lack of specificity and the objection was not further developed. We find no......