Richardson Et Al.,v,. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co., (No. 6743.)
| Citation | 167 Ga. 340,145 S.E. 448 |
| Decision Date | 16 November 1928 |
| Docket Number | (No. 6743.) |
| Parties | RICHARDSON et al. v . JOHN HANCOCK MUT. LIFE INS. CO. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
(Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)
[Ed. Note.—For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, First and Second Series, Fair Market Value.]
Error from Superior Court, Seminole County; M. J. Teomans, Judge.
Proceedings between J. M. Richardson and others and the John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company. Judgment for latter, and former bring error. Reversed.
W. L. Bryan, of Milton, Fla., and J. T. Goree and H. G. Rawls, both of Donalsonville, for plaintiffs in error.
Milner & Farkas, of Albany, and R. L Cox, of Donalsonville, for defendant in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court.
This was an equitable proceeding to set aside a tax sale and to cancel the deeds made in pursuance thereof.
1. Movants complain that the court erred in admitting specified documentary evidence, over appropriate objection, tending to show a bona fide effort by petitioner to redeem the land sold at tax sale in accordance with statutory provision. The petition originally contained allegations to-that effect, but the court had sustained a demurrer thereto, and such allegations were stricken. Held, the court erred in admitting the evidence over the objection (1) that it was immaterial and irrelevant, and (2) that the pleadings did not so authorize.
2. While a witness was giving on direct examination his opinion as to the "market value" of the land, counsel for movants propounded the question:
"What do you think it would have sold for cash at a fair market value in July, 1924, in consideration of the hard times?"
On objection, the witness was not allowed to answer, and error is assigned. Held, no error, Central Ga. P. Co. v. Mays, 137 Ga. 120, 123, 72 S. E. 900; Nelson v. Atlanta, 138 Ga. 252, 256, 75 S. E. 245; Newnan v. Davis, 145 Ga. 380, 89 S. E. 336.
3. It was error to permit a witness for the plaintiff, on direct examination, over appropriate objection, to answer the following question:
"If this particular land had been offered to you on the 3d day of July, 1924, by a man who had a good title and who was in position to deliver the property unencumbered, but was not compelled to do so, what would you have been willing to pay for the property at that particular time?"
It was not material to prove what the witness "would have been willing to pay for the property."
4. The court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury that the "market value" was to be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Jones v. Smith
-
Jones v. Smith
... ... 162 JONES et al. v. SMITH et al. No. 16858.Supreme Court of GeorgiaNovember 15, 1949 ... Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Harris, 117 ... Ga. 1001(2), 44 S.E. 885; ... life'--on the following objection by counsel for the ... Ga. 568(5), 48 S.E. 234, 235. In Richardson v. John ... Hancock Mutual Life Ins. Co., 167 ... ...
-
Richardson v. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co.
...145 S.E. 448 167 Ga. 340 RICHARDSON et al. v. JOHN HANCOCK MUT. LIFE INS. CO. No. 6743.Supreme Court of GeorgiaNovember 16, Syllabus by Editorial Staff. In equitable proceedings to set aside tax sale and cancel deeds, admission of documentary evidence tending to show bona fide efforts to re......