Patterson v. Collier
| Decision Date | 08 February 1887 |
| Citation | 3 S.E. 119,77 Ga. 292 |
| Parties | Patterson v. Collier, Ex'r. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Exhibits annexed to a motion for a new trial, and referred to therein as annexed, are part of the record, and, though constituting the evidence on which the motion was decided, they need not be incorporated in the bill of exceptions.
An extraordinary motion for a new trial, based alone upon newly-discovered evidence, ought not to prevail, unless there has been full diligence to procure the evidence before the trial, nor unless the new evidence would probably produce a different verdict if a new trial were.had.
A general statement that all possible diligence was used may need reduction to particular acts; and affirming that inquiry was made of numerous persons, every person, etc., may not suffice, where no names of any persons are mentioned, and no reason assigned for the omission.
That a deed bears date in 1838, is attested by a justice of the peace who was not commissioned until 1841, and is on paper bearing the water-mark "1840, " will justify a strong suspicion of its want of genuineness, more especially if the body of it is in the handwriting of the feoffee, and the signature is apparently in the same handwriting with the body.
Error from superior court, Stewart county; Port, Judge.
Action of ejectment. A deed relied upon by defendants having been found to be a forgery, defendants moved for a new trial on the ground that the deed, a copy of which was used at the trial, had been unexpectedly discovered since, together with additional evidence of its genuineness. Such motion was denied in the court below, and defendants brought error.
J. L. Wimberly & Son, W. A. Little, W. C. Worrill, and R. F. Watts, for plaintiff in error. W. D. Kiddoo, contra.
Bleckley, C. J. 1. Exhibits annexed to a motion for a new trial, and referred to therein as annexed, are part of the record proper, and, though constituting the evidence on which the motion was decided, they need not be incorporated in the bill of exceptions. This overrules the motion which was made to dismiss this writ of error, which motion was founded on the fact that the bill of exceptions did not set out certain documentary matter that was annexed as exhibits to the motion for new trial, and which came up in the record, duly certified, as a part of the motion. "We rule that whatever is an exhibit to the pleadings, and thus in the case all the time as a part of the pleadings, though it may be also part or the whole, of the evidence, need not be put in the bill of exceptions, but may come up both as evidence and pleading, under the clerk's general certificate to the transcript of the record. Allen v. Young, 62 Ga. 617.
2. An extraordinary motion for a new trial, based alone...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Moss v. State
...v. Boyd, 31 Ga. App. 104 (5), 119 S. E. 542. See, also, Taylor v. State, 132 Ga. 235 (3), 237, 63 S. E. 1116; Patterson v. Collier, 77 Ga. 292 (3), 296, 3 S. E. 119. Where the sole effect of alleged newly discovered evidence is to impeach a witness, such evidence is not ground for a new tri......
-
Moss v. State
... ... Warehouse v. Boyd, 31 Ga.App. 104 (5), 119 S.E. 542. See, ... also, Taylor v. State, 132 Ga. 235 (3), 237, 63 S.E ... 1116; Patterson v. Collier, 77 Ga. 292 (3), 296, 3 ... S.E. 119. Where the sole effect of alleged newly discovered ... evidence is to impeach a witness, such ... ...
-
Millers Nat. Ins. Co. v. Waters
...bound to conclude that the affiant had exercised the required diligence. Taylor v. State, 132 Ga. 235, 237, 63 S.E. 1116; Patterson v. Collier, 77 Ga. 292, 3 S.E. 119.' See also Holder v. Farmers' Exchange Bank of Stillmore, 30 Ga.App. 400(5), 118 S.E. 467 and Jennings v. Autry, 94 Ga.App. ......
-
Holder v. Farmers' Exch. Bank Of Stillmore
...on October 19, 1920. "A general statement that all possible diligence was used may need reduction to particular acts." Patterson v. Collier, 77 Ga. 292 (3), 3 S. E. 119. And see Evans v. Grier, 29 Ga. App. 426 (3), 115 S. E. 921. In the absence of a showing demanding the conclusion both tha......