Rutland v. Jordan
| Decision Date | 28 January 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 41091,No. 2,41091,2 |
| Parties | Guy W. RUTLAND, Sr. v. Mary B. JORDAN |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by Court
The evidence authorized the verdict and the trial court did not err in charging the jury on issues raised by the pleadings and evidence.
Mary B. Jordan sued Guy W. Rutland Sr. to recover for damages allegedly sustained because to construction of a dam by the defendant on land adjacent to land owned by the plaintiff. On the trial of the case it was stipulated that the defendant completed the dam on his property in 1960 and that such dam was the dam involved in the case. The plaintiff introduced evidence to authorize a finding that the construction of the dam on the defendant's property caused a part of the plaintiff's property to become 'swampy' or 'marshy.' There was evidence as to the value of such land without such condition (the condition before the construction of the dam by the defendant), and the value of such land with the swamp or marsh (the condition after the construction of such dam), as to the amount expended by the plaintiff in an effort to correct the condition caused by the construction of such dam, as well as evidence that the dam was negligently constructed. At the conclusion of the oral testimony the jury viewed the property in question. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff and thereafter the trial court overruled the defendant's amended motion for new trial and it is on such judgment adverse to him that the defendant now assigns error.
McCurdy, Candler & Harris, Decatur, Claude E. Hambrick, Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.
Peek, Carr, Whaley & Blackburn, Benjamin B. Blackburn, III, Atlanta, for defendant in error.
1. In support of the general grounds of the defendant's motion for new trial it is contended that the amount of the verdict was not authorized. Rogers v. Western & Atlantic Railroad, 209 Ga. 450(4), 74 S.E.2d 87, 88. The verdict for the plaintiff was otherwise authorized by the evidence and the trial court did not err in overruling the usual general grounds of the defendant's motion for new trial.
2. The plaintiff's petition alleged that the damages to the property were caused by the negligent construction of a dam on the defendant's property and 'that surface waters began percolating onto her land as a result of the subterranean waters forced under the dam of the defendant by the pressure of the impounded waters which has rendered large areas of her property a bog and a marsh, rendering them completely unfit for any...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Medoc Corp. v. Keel
...raised by both the pleadings and the evidence. Bone Constr. Co. v. Lewis, 148 Ga.App. 61, 250 S.E.2d 851 (1978); Rutland v. Jordan, 111 Ga.App. 106, 140 S.E.2d 498 (1965). We note the appellant's reliance upon Wilson v. Bonner, 166 Ga.App. 9, 303 S.E.2d 134 [1983] for the proposition that a......
-
Gay v. City of Rome, s. 60373
...of the judge to charge the jury on the law applicable to the issues made by the pleadings and the evidence. Rutland v. Jordan, 111 Ga.App. 106, 107(3), 140 S.E.2d 498 (1965). " 'The evidence to authorize a jury instruction need not be substantial or direct; it is enough if there is even sli......
-
Security Development & Inv. Co. v. Ben O'Callaghan Co., 46404
...of. It is the duty of the court to charge the law applicable to the evidence and the contentions of the parties. Rutland v. Jordan, 111 Ga.App. 106, 107(3), 140 S.E.2d 498; American Fire, etc., Co. v. Grizzle, 108 Ga.App. 496, 497, 133 S.E.2d 3. The appellant also contends the court erred b......
-
Southern Mut. Inv. Corp. v. Langston
...was not without evidence to support it.' Rogers v. Western & Atlantic R.R., 209 Ga. 450(4), 74 S.E.2d 87. In accord, Rutland v. Jordan, 111 Ga.App. 106(1), 140 S.E.2d 498. 6. Whereas evidence of the diminution of value in plaintiffs' land was not admitted into evidence, evidence was introdu......