Legg v. Legg, (No. 6116.)

• Decision Date: 14 December 1927
• Docket Number: (No. 6116.)
• Citation: 165 Ga. 314,140 S.E. 868
• Parties: LEGG. v. LEGG.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

165 Ga. 314

140 S.E. 868

LEGG.

v.LEGG.

(No. 6116.)

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Dec. 14, 1927.

(Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)

Error from Superior Court, Floyd County; James Maddox, Judge.

Suit by Minnie Legg against L. N. Legg. Judgment for plaintiff for part of amount claimed, plaintiff's motion for new trial was overruled, and she brings error. Affirmed.

F. A. Cantrell and Henson & Barnett, all of Calhoun, for plaintiff in error.

Maddox, Matthews & Owens, of Rome, for defendant in error.

Syllabus Opinion by the Court.

HINES, J. A wife sued her husband for permanent alimony. The jury returned a verdict for the wife, by which they awarded to her $500 for herself, $100 as attorneys' fees, and gave her the use of the residence of the husband for life, or until she marries. She moved for a new trial. The judge overruled her motion, and she excepted.

1. She complains that the court erred in permitting her husband, over her objection, to testify as follows:

"When I did talk to her [the plaintiff] it was just prior to the time it [the first case filed]was coming up for trial, and I went to her for adjustment rather than spend money for litigation; that what I had I had rather give to my wife and children rather than spend it in court; and I proposed to her, before the filing of this suit, in settlement I would turn over * * * everything."

The objection was that this testimony "was clearly improper and inadmissible." Such objection is too general. The attention of the court must be called to the specific ground of objection at the time the evidence is offered; and, unless this is done, no question is raised for decision by this court. Andrews v. State, 118 Ga. 1, 43 S. E. 852; McDonald v. State, 21 Ga. App. 125 (6), 94 S. E. 262; Kelley v. Kelley, 142 Ga. 861, 83 S. E. 856.

2. The court charged the jury as follows:

"You may, in your discretion, name and fix, by your verdict, a fixed sum as alimony, in the event you find the plaintiff is entitled to alimony; you may provide that this sum be paid all at one time, or you may provide in installments at such time and in such amounts as you may determine. You may find such sum either in property or money, with this proviso, however; should you find the alimony in property, you would be confined to the property described in plaintiff's petition, and you would be required to describe and set forth the property by your verdict."

To this charge the plaintiff excepted upon the sole ground that it limited the finding of the jury to a lump sum, and in one installment, or in property to be described by the jury. A casual reading of the charge shows that this exception is without merit. Wise v. Wise, 156 Ga. 459, 119 S. E. 410.

3. The court charged the jury as follows:

"The form of your verdict would be: 'We, the jury, find in favor of the plaintiff' so much, stating it in dollars and cents, and if you find a lump sum; also so much, stating it in dollars and cents, as attorney's fees. If you find monthly payments, the form of your verdict...