McFarland v. Darien & W.R. Co.

• Decision Date: 13 December 1906
• Citation: 56 S.E. 74,127 Ga. 97
• Parties: McFARLAND v. DARIEN & W. R. CO.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

56 S.E. 74

127 Ga. 97

McFARLAND v. DARIEN & W. R. CO.

Supreme Court of Georgia

December 13, 1906

Syllabus by the Court.

There being a conflict in the evidence as to material issues in the case, the judge erred in directing a verdict.

A ground of a motion for a new trial, based upon the admission of evidence, should state what objection was made thereto when it was offered at the trial, and should affirmatively show that the objection was then urged; otherwise, no question is raised for determination by this court.

Error was assigned upon the court's refusal "to permit the counsel for the plaintiff on cross-examination to inquire of the witness Emerson, the vice president and general manager of the defendant, in regard to the charges preferred against him by the board of directors of the defendant, and which they were seeking to inquire into at the time the said Emerson demanded of the plaintiff that he turn over to him the office he then held with the defendant." This assignment is without merit, as it is impossible to determine, from this ground of the motion, whether the alleged charges were of such a nature as to render evidence touching them relevant and material, without searching through the brief of evidence, which this court will not undertake to do.

Error from Superior Court, McIntosh County; P. E. Seabrook, Judge.

Action by F. H. McFarland against the Darien & Western Railroad Company. Judgment for defendant. Plaintiff brings error. Reversed.

W. G Charlton, for plaintiff in error.

Hitch & Denmark, for defendant in error.

BECK J.

1. Whether the letter from Emerson, who was the vice president and general manager of the corporation, was intended as a dismissal and discharge of the plaintiff from the position of auditor and superintendent, must necessarily depend to a certain extent upon the construction which should be placed upon that document in the light of the proved facts and circumstances in the case. Independently of any oral testimony, it would seem to us that the letter was practically a dismissal of McFarland, at least temporarily from said position. He was instructed to put another "in possession of the office at Darien." And the party to whom absolute possession of the office was to be given was not only to take actual, physical possession of the office and all of his books, documents, papers, etc., but the auditor and superintendent was to put himself absolutely under the control and direction of the new acting auditor and was to receive orders from him as if they came from the general manager. The plaintiff was deprived of the right to sign vouchers and checks, and the suspension of his right to exercise these...