Ricker v. Brancale, 41776
| Decision Date | 05 April 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 41776,No. 2,41776,2 |
| Citation | 113 Ga.App. 447,148 S.E.2d 468 |
| Parties | W. R. RICKER v. Michele BRANCALE |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Michele Brancale sued W. R. Ricker and Fanny Bell Ricker to recover damages which allegedly resulted from a collision between the plaintiff's automobile and an automobile owned by the defendant W. R. Ricker and being driven by Fanny Bell Ricker as agent. The defendants demurred and the plaintiff amended by making his allegations more specific. Thereafter, the defendant filed objections to the amendment seeking to allege a new cause of action and because it sought to add new parties. They also renewed their original demurrers and filed additional demurrers, all of which were overruled on April 23, 1965. On July 7, 1965 the plaintiff filed an additional amendment and the defendants filed additional demurrers and objections thereto which were overruled on July 23, 1965. On the trial of the case the plaintiff introduced evidence, a part of which was objected to, and rested. The defendants offered no evidence but announced that they rested, whereupon, over the defendants' objection the plaintiff was permitted to present additional evidence in support of the allegations of his petition. Thereafter, the trial court directed a verdict for the plaintiff on the issue of liability leaving the amount of damages to be fixed by the jury.
Oze R. Horton, Hapeville, for appellant.
Owens & Porter, Norcross, for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
1. 'As against general demurrer, the general allegation of agency of one of the defendants for the other was sufficient.' Williams v. Ballenger, 87 Ga.App. 255(2), 73 S.E.2d 509.
(a) Harvey v. Zell, 87 Ga.App. 280, 284, 73 S.E.2d 605.
(b) Assuming but not deciding that the plaintiff's petition as originally filed was subject to special demurrer it was not subject to the defendant's general demurrer, and the amendments filed prior to the first judgment on demurrers cured any alleged defects in the original petition.
(c) The second amendment to the plaintiff's petition was not subject to the defendant's renewed and additional demurrers and objections thereto.
2. 'Whether, after the plaintiff has closed his case in chief and the defendant has closed its evidence, the plaintiff should then be allowed to introduce evidence, not in rebuttal, is a matter within the discretion of the trial court.' Georgia R.& Bkg. Co., v. Churchill, 113 Ga. 12(3), 38 S.E. 336. See also Autrey v. State, 23 Ga.App. 763, 99 S.E. 389, and citations.
3. Mere ownership of property does not authorize the owner to testify as to its value...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Beeck v. Aquaslide 'N' Dive Corp.
...6, 8 (1966) (remand for new trial on issue of employment relationship between truck driver and defendant); Ricker v. Brancale, 113 Ga.App. 447, 448, 148 S.E.2d 468, 469 (1966) (remand for new trial on issue of damages); Troendle v. Boudreaux, 246 So.2d 732, 734 (La.App.1971) (trial court re......
-
Maloy v. Dixon
...& Banking Co. v. Churchill, 113 Ga. 12(3), 38 S.E. 336; Harden v. Central of Ga. R. Co., 21 Ga.App. 218, 94 S.E. 263; Ricker v. Brancale, 113 Ga.App. 447(2), 148 S.E.2d 468. In Bartell v. Del Cook Lumber Co., 108 Ga.App. 592, 602, 133 S.E.2d 903, 909, we stated that 'The truck driver could ......
-
State Highway Dept. v. Parker
...its value without giving the facts on which he bases his opinion. See Hoard v. Wiley, 113 Ga.App. 328, 147 S.E.2d 782; Ricker v. Brancale, 113 Ga.App. 447, 148 S.E.2d 468. '(P)roof of an offer to buy property at a certain price is not competent in the determination of the question of value.......
- Georgia Life & Health Ins. Co. v. Sewell