Janney v. Dugger
| Decision Date | 20 June 1952 |
| Docket Number | No. 34035,No. 1,34035,1 |
| Citation | 71 S.E.2d 777,86 Ga.App. 414 |
| Parties | JANNEY v. DUGGER |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court.
The court did not err in denying the motion for a new trial.
F. B. Dugger and J. M. Dugger, trading as Dugger Plumbing & Heating Company, brought an action in the Superior Court of Bibb County against E. H. Janney, seeking to recover $544.45 with interest thereon for labor and materials furnished the defendant in improving certain realty belonging to him. This original claim was made Count 1 and a Count 2 added by amendment. Count 2 was based upon the ground that a mechanic's and materialman's lien had been filed against the property of the defendant; that he came to the plaintiffs and renewed a promise to pay the amount claimed if the plaintiffs would forego foreclosure of the lien; and that, relying upon such promise, the plaintiffs did forbear until such lien foreclosure was barred by the statute and the plaintiffs were thus caused to act to their detriment.
The defendant filed an answer and denied that he was indebted to the plaintiffs in any sum, denied that they were entitled to any special lien as had been prayed against the property, and contended that, if they were entitled to anything, the amount due them was due by William Randall and Lewis Wynn, doing business as Randall-Wynn Builders, the contractors on the job.
The case proceeded to trial and resulted in a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs on Count Two. The defendant's amended motion for a new trial was denied. To this judgment he excepted.
Frank G. Wilson, Macon, for plaintiff in error.
Carl E. Westmoreland, Ed Sell, Macon, for defendant in error.
WORRILL, Judge (after stating the foregoing facts.)
1. Special ground 1 of the motion for new trial complains that the court erred in permitting counsel for the plaintiffs to testify as to negotiations for a 'compromise' of the plaintiffs' claim. The testimony objected to was that the defendant's attorney agreed that the amount claimed would be paid if two minor defects in certain bathroom equipment placed in the defendant's house were remedied. This did not relate to a 'compromise,' but was a recognition of the plaintiffs' right to demand a settlement of the full amount of their claim with the corresponding duty upon them to remedy the aforesaid defects in the equipment. The proposal of the defendant's attorney required no concession upon the part of the plaintiffs as would necessarily be inherent in a 'compromise.' As was said in Teasley v. Bradley, 110 Ga. 497, 507, 35 S.E. 782, 786:
2. Special ground 2 complains that the court erred in refusing to require a witness, counsel for the plaintiffs, to testify as to what defenses are available to a property owner after a valid lien has been recorded and foreclosed against his contractor. 'Where the only effect of testimony sought to be adduced is to elicit the opinion of the witness upon a question of law, and not one of fact, such testimony should be repelled.' Conner v. Hodges, 7 Ga.App. 153, 66 S.E. 546, 547.
3. Special ground 3 complains that a charge of the court as to the issue in Count 2 was erroneous and injurious because it restricted the jury to a finding of one specified sum, or no sum at all, whereas under the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Butts v. Davis, 47045
...counsel argued that the documents came within the rulings of Teasley v. Bradley, 110 Ga. 497(6), 35 S.E. 782; Janney v. Dugger, 86 Ga.App. 414, 71 S.E.2d 777, and Swanson v. Hodges, 96 Ga.App. 540, 101 S.E.2d 212. These rulings are that an admission made in an offer to settle upon certain t......
-
McWilliams v. State
...to establish the elements of conspiracy. The opinion of Hay, a lay witness, on that issue is not admissible. Janney v. Dugger, 86 Ga.App. 414, 416(2), 71 S.E.2d 777 (1952). Accordingly, the trial court did not err by sustaining the State's objection to appellant McWilliams question. 3. a. A......
-
Cawthon Motor Co. v. Scheufler
...(Lovell v. Frankum, 145 Ga. 106, 109, 88 S.E. 569; Southern Bell, supra, 141 Ga.App. p. 223, 233 S.E.2d 9, and see Janney v. Dugger, 86 Ga.App. 414, 415, 71 S.E.2d 777). The statement that the OCA was "unable to negotiate a settlement" with Cawthon was likewise irrelevant, as having no prob......
-
Shaw v. State
...upon a question of law, and not one of fact, such testimony should be repelled.' [Cit.]" (Emphasis supplied.) Janney v. Dugger, 86 Ga.App. 414, 416(2), 71 S.E.2d 777 (1952). See also McWilliams v. State, 177 Ga.App. 447, 449(2), 339 S.E.2d 721 (1985). However, the questions that were posite......