Rolan v. Rittenhouse
| Decision Date | 13 May 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,No. 40038,40038,2 |
| Citation | 131 S.E.2d 112,107 Ga.App. 769 |
| Parties | Hubert W. ROLAN v. O. B. RITTENHOUSE |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Fullbright & Duffey, Harl C. Duffey, Jr., Rome, for plaintiff in error.
E. J. Clower, Rome, for defendant in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
This was a suit to recover the sum of $726.50 allegedly due the plaintiff under an oral agreement entered into by the plaintiff and the defendant for the purpose of dissolving a partnership between the parties. The jury returned a verdict for the defendant and the exception is to the denial of the plaintiff's amended motion for new trial. Held:
1. The first special ground of the amended motion for new trial which assigns error on the admission of certain testimony elicited from the plaintiff on cross-examination does not require consideration since the record in this case discloses that substantially the same evidence as that objected to in this ground was subsequently admitted into evidence without objection. Hart v. State, 53 Ga.App. 365, 366, 186 S.E. 152.
2. Special ground 2 assigns error on the following excerpt from the charge of the court, 'I charge you that the burden is on the plaintiff to establish the proof of this case by a preponderance of the testimony,' it being contended that said charge was confusing and misleading to the jury since the court instructed them that the plaintiff must carry the burden of proof by the preponderance of testimony rather than by the preponderance of evidence. While the use of the word 'testimony' in the excerpt complained of instead of the word 'evidence' was inapt, this ground affords no cause for reversal of this case since it cannot be said from an examination of the record in this case and the charge in its entirety that such inaccuracy was harmful to the plaintiff. Cooper v. State, 70 Ga.App. 691(3), 29 S.E.2d 430; Hendrix v. Bank of Portal, 169 Ga. 264(6), 149 S.E. 879.
3. 'An instruction containing a correct legal principle, though inappropriate to the case, if not prejudicial to the contention of the losing party, affords no sufficient reason for granting a new trial.' Turner v. Elliott, 127 Ga. 338(3), 56 S.E. 434; Milam v. Mandeville Mills, 41 Ga.App. 62(6), 151 S.E. 672. The general principles of partnership law embodied in the excerpt of the charge complained of in special ground 3 were correct in the abstract and while the same were not essential to the determination of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
American Cas. Co. v. Crain-Daly Volkswagen, Inc.
...the jury was not only erroneous, but that it hurt the losing party. Williams v. State, 180 Ga. 595(3), 180 S.E. 101; Rolan v. Rittenhouse, 107 Ga.App. 769(3), 131 S.E.2d 112. If, in considering the charge as a whole, it is improbable that the jury was misled, a new trial will not be granted......
-
Smith v. Poteet
...affords no sufficient reason for granting a new trial.' Turner v. Elliott, 127 Ga. 338(3), 56 S.E. 434. See also Rolan v. Rittenhouse, 107 Ga.App. 769(3), 131 S.E.2d 112. As was said in Wilson v. Harrell, 87 Ga.App. 793, 795, 75 S.E.2d 436, 441: 'While the giving of this charge may have bee......
-
Worn v. Warren
...to the contention of the losing party, affords no sufficient reason for granting a new trial." (Cits.)' Rolan v. Rittenhouse, 107 Ga.App. 769(3) (131 SE2d 112) (1963). 'An irrelevant or inapplicable charge is not ground for reversal unless it is likely to have misled the jury or to have aff......
-
Fratelli Gardino, SpA v. CARIBBEAN LBR. CO., INC.
...since no punitive damages were awarded. See Tri-State Systems, Inc. v. McMickle, 239 Ga. 155, 236 S.E.2d 82; Rolan v. Rittenhouse, 107 Ga.App. 769(3), 131 S.E.2d 112. Defendant also alleges error in submitting the issue of attorney's fees to the jury. It is argued that attorney's fees shoul......