Maxwell v. Hollis, 20132
| Decision Date | 05 September 1958 |
| Docket Number | No. 20132,20132 |
| Citation | 104 S.E.2d 893,214 Ga. 358 |
| Parties | Tom MAXWELL et al. v. Mrs. Lewis HOLLIS, Administratrix. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. A ground of a motion for a new trial, complaining of the admission of documentary evidence, that does not set out literally or in substance or attach as an exhibit the document objected to, or does not point out in such ground such parts of the record by page number as are necessary to an understanding of the errors complained of, is not in proper form and is incomplete to raise any question for decision.
2. The portion of the court's charge on constructive possession, complained of in ground two, was not misleading or confusing.
3. Where the court fully charges the law relating to prescriptive title and adverse possession, if further instructions were desired as to the weight to be given evidence as to cutting timber, an appropriate written request should have been made.
4. To make an objection to the admissibility of evidence available for review, it must appear that a valid objection was made to its introduction.
5. The evidence fully supports the verdict, and it was not error to deny the defendants' motion for a new trial.
Walton Harden, Colley & Orr, Washington, for plaintiffs in error.
Lawson E. Thompson, Washington, for defendant in error.
Mrs. Mattie Maxwell filed her equitable petition against Tom Maxwell and others, the heirs of William and Nancy Maxwell, wherein she asserted tha she was in possession of 123 acres of land, title to the land being in her by virtue of a deed from William and Nancy Maxwell, dated May 11, 1893, to her husband, William L. Maxwell, and a warranty deed to her from her husband dated August 22, 1922, and recorded in the office of the Clerk of Wilkes Superior Court. She further asserted that her husband died in 1947, intestate, and she was his sole heir at law; and that, at the time of the filing of her petition in August 1956, she had been in actual possession of the land under a bona fide color of title and such possession was adverse to the rights and claims of the defendants and had ripened into a valid title by prescription. Her prayers were that the defendants be enjoined from interfering with her possession and for a decree forever barring the defendants from setting up or claiming any interests in the property or title to the same.
The defendants in their answer denied the material allegations in Mrs. Maxwell's petition and asserted that whatever possession of the land she had after the death of her husband was by virtue of an agreement with the defendants, who held title to the land as heirs at law of William and Nancy Maxwell, whereby Mrs. Maxwell's possession of the land was permissive and not adverse to the claims of the defendants. Pending the action, Mrs. Maxwell died and her administratrix was made party plaintiff. On the trial the court submitted only the issue as to whether Mrs. Maxwell held title to the land by virtue of adverse possession for more than seven years under color of title. A verdict was returned in favor. of the administratrix. The defendants' motion for a new trial on the general and special grounds was denied, and the defendants assign as error the denial of their motion.
1. Special grounds one, four and five of the amended motion for a new trial, being deficient for identical reasons, will be considered together. Ground one assigns signs error on the admission in evidence of 'Wilkes County Tax Returns of Mrs. Mattie Maxwell for the years 1950, 1951, 1952, 1953, 1954, 1955 and 1956,' the objection being that 'these tax returns * * * do not show that this is the land in question.' and that 'the tax receipt itself is the only thing that is admissible.' Ground four asserts that the court erred in admitting in evidence 'Wilkes County Tax Receipts of Mrs. Mattie Maxwell for the years 1948, 1950, 1951, 1952, 1953, 1954 and 1955,' over the objection that the receipts do not identify the land. Ground five asserts that the court erred in admitting in evidence 'Motion of Marian C. Sequine and Sara Diaz, as next of kin of Eddie Walton, asking appointment of a guardian ad litem which was filed in Wilkes Superior Court on October 29, 1956 and dismissed by them on April 5, 1957,' over the objection that 'unless we know definitely what these objections are, we will have to object.'
The movants did not set out in any of these grounds, literally or in substance, or attach as an exhibit to the grounds, the documents objected to and admitted in evidence, nor did they point out in each ground 'such parts of the record or brief of the evidence by page number as are necessary to an understanding of the error complained of,' as provided by the amendment to the Rules of Practice and Procedure adopted by this court on January 28, 1957 and approved by the General Assembly. Ga.L.1957, pp. 224, 232, 233 (Code, Ann.Supp., § 6-901). Such...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Adcock v. Perry
-
Wood v. Hamilton
...Manley, 96 Ga.App. 158(1), pp. 160, 99 S.E.2d 534; Gaskill v. Brown, 103 Ga.App. 33, 36(2), 118 S.E.2d 113. And see Maxwell v. Hollis, 214 Ga. 358, 360(1), 104 S.E.2d 893. 6. Special ground 13 complains of the refusal of the trial judge to charge the jury a particular written request. The o......
-
Hill v. State, 20374
...by this court, for it neither sets out in the ground nor points out from the record, the statement complained of (Maxwell v. Hollis, 214 Ga. 358(1), 104 S.E.2d 893), and we have been unable to find such statement in the record of this case. Assuming that such statement was admitted in evide......
-
Whaley v. Sim Grady Machinery Co.
...ground is not in proper form, is incomplete and is insufficient to raise any question for decision. Code Ann. § 6-901; Maxwell v. Hollis, 214 Ga. 358(1), 104 S.E.2d 893; Singleton v. Singleton, 202 Ga. 269, 270 (4), 42 S.E.2d 737; Byck v. Lawton, 218 Ga. 858(4), 131 S.E.2d 176; King v. Mayo......