Peacock v. Stinson
| Decision Date | 25 January 1945 |
| Docket Number | 30700. |
| Parties | PEACOCK v. STINSON. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
W. A. Dampier and R.I. Stephens, both of Dublin, for plaintiff in error.
Nelson & Nelson, of Dublin, for defendant in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court.
1. In a dispossessory warrant proceeding the only issue is tenancy or no tenancy, and the defendant may not attempt to set up title in another; the court did not err in excluding the evidence which was calculated to show title in a third party. See Ryals v. Atlantic Life Ins. Co., 53 Ga.App. 469, 186 S.E. 197; Fitzgerald Trust Co. v. Shepard, 60 Ga.App. 674, 4 S.E.2d 689, and cases cited.
2. Where the court, before the defendant had introduced any evidence, understood a remark of the defendant's counsel to mean that the defendant had no evidence to offer, and stated, "I will direct a verdict for the plaintiff," and where, upon being informed that counsel merely meant that no further cross-examination of a particular witness was desired, the court apologized for the mistake and allowed the defendant to introduce evidence and subsequently overruled the plaintiff's motion for a directed verdict, no error is presented.
3. Where the plaintiff is entitled to the opening and concluding argument, the defendant may not, by waiving his argument after one of the plaintiff's counsel has opened, deprive another of the plaintiff's counsel from concluding upon the contention that more than one counsel are being heard in conclusion. Only one is being heard in conclusion and as far as the plaintiff is concerned, the situation is the same as if the defendant's counsel had availed themselves of their right to argue.
4. The evidence authorized the verdict, and no error of law appearing, the court did not err in overruling the amended motion for new trial.
Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sheriff v. State, S03G0492.
...`last say.'" Earlier opinions issued by the Georgia appellate courts in civil cases presaged that conclusion. In Peacock v. Stinson, 72 Ga.App. 48, 49(3), 32 S.E.2d 921 (1945), the court noted that the party with the middle argument could not waive his argument after the opposing party had ......
-
Goforth v. Wigley
...in the final argument was in compliance with the code section, so long as "only one was heard in conclusion." In Peacock v. Stinson, 72 Ga.App. 48(3), 32 S.E.2d 921, we said: "Where the plaintiff is entitled to the opening and concluding argument, the defendant may not, by waiving his argum......
-
Crain v. Daniel
... ... v. Shepard, 60 Ga.App. 674, 4 S.E.2d 689; Ryals v ... Atlantic Life Insurance Co., 53 Ga.App. 469, 186 S.E ... 197; Peacock v. Stinson, 72 Ga.App. 48, 32 S.E.2d ... 921. However, the defendant may be able to show that no ... tenancy exists, as an affirmative [79 Ga.App ... ...
-
Crain v. Daniel
...Trust Co. v. Shepard, 60 Ga.App. 674, 4 S.E.2d 689; Ryals v. Atlantic Life Insurance Co., 53 Ga.App. 469, 186 S.E. 197; Peacock v. Stinson, 72 Ga.App. 48, 32 S.E.2d 921. However, the defendant may be able to show that no tenancy exists, as an affirmative defense, by showing that his possess......