Kuusisto v. Wilkins, 26312.

• Citation: 192 S.E. 639,56 Ga.App. 405
• Decision Date: 10 September 1937
• Docket Number: No. 26312.,26312.
• Parties: KUUSISTO . v. WILKINS.
• Court: United States Court of Appeals (Georgia)

56 Ga.App. 405

192 S.E. 639

KUUSISTO .

v.WILKINS.

No. 26312.

Court of Appeals of Georgia,

Division No. 2.

Sept. 10, 1937.

Syllabus by Editorial Staff.

Error from City Court of Jesup; Raymond Pierce, Judge.

Action on account by R. L. Wilkins against Mrs. Hilja Kuusisto. From a judgment on a verdict for plaintiff, defendant brings error.

Affirmed.

Wm. D. Turner, of Jesup, for plaintiff in error.

Joe Thomas, Jr., of Jesup, for defendant in error.

Syllabus Opinion by the Court.

SUTTON, Judge.

1. " 'To make an objection to evidence available in the reviewing court, it must appear that objection was made, and upon what grounds it was made, in the trial court.' It is not sufficient that the evidence was admitted over objection, nor that certain reasons are stated in the motion for new trial why the evidence was not admissible. Edenfield v. Brinson, 149 Ga. 377 (4), [378], 100 S.E. 373; Hardy v. Hardy, 149 Ga. 371, 374, (3), 100 S.E. 101." Norman v. McMillan, 151 Ga. 363 (4), 107 S.E. 325, 326; Central of Georgia Ry. Co. v. Anderson, 43 Ga.App. 189, 190, 158 S.E. 333; Brown v. Mayor and Council of Athens, 47 Ga.App. 820, 171 S.E. 730. The amended motion for new trial does not show what objections were interposed, at the trial, to the introduction of the evidence complained of; and the special grounds of such motion cannot here be considered.

2. This was a suit on an account for a balance of $1,213.73. The plaintiff testified that the account was correct. He identified and testified as to the correctness of the ledger sheets, which were introduced in evidence, and also testified: "We sent out statements at the end of each month; no complaint or objection was ever made to the statements by Mrs. Kuusisto." (The account consisted of numerous items with many credits, extending over a period from 1930 to 1936.) The defendant introduced no evidence. In one paragraph of her answer she specifically denied that $306.81 of the account was contracted by her, but was contracted by her deceased husband in his lifetime. The defendant was given credit for the $306.81, and the verdict rendered against her was for $906.90. The verdict was authorized by the evidence, and the court did not err in overruling the motion for new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

STEPHENS, P. J., and FELTON, J., concur.