Shedden v. Stiles
| Decision Date | 26 January 1905 |
| Citation | 121 Ga. 637,49 S.E. 719 |
| Parties | SHEDDEN v. STILES. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
ACTION ON NOTE—BURDEN OF PROOF—INSTRUCTIONS—ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES —DELIVERY TO JURY.
1. Where the issue tried was whether the note sued on was executed for the plaintiff's accommodation, and there was direct and positive testimony submitted by both parties in support of their respective contentions, and the court instructed the jury that, as the defendant admitted the execution of the note, the burden rested upon him to prove his defense to the satisfaction of the jury, the mere failure to charge that the holder of a negotiable promissory note is presumed to be such bona fide and for value was not cause for a new trial.
2. Refusal to give an oral request to charge was not cause for a new trial, though made in response to an inquiry by the judge to the counsel, "If there was anything else, they desired charged."
3. There was no material error in admitting evidence.
4. Interrogatories, though read in evidence, should not be delivered to the jury. Where the court, over the objection of the party against whom the verdict was rendered, sent to the jury, after they had retired to deliberate as to their verdict, interrogatories which had been read in evidence, and which were calculated to influence the jury in favor of the prevailing party, a new trial should have been granted.
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Error from City Court of Cartersville; A. M. Foute, Judge.
Action by R. F. Shedden against W. H. Stiles. Verdict for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Reversed.
Lumpkin, Boykin & Etheridge and J. M. Moon, for plaintiff in error.
Thos. W. Milner & Son, for defendant in error.
FISH, P. J. R. F. Shedden sued W. H. Stiles on a promissory note signed by Stiles as maker, payable to his own order, and indorsed in blank by himself and George T. Hodgson. There was a verdict for defendant, and plaintiff's motion for a new trial having been overruled, he excepted.
1. The only defense filed to the action was that the note sued on was executed for the accommodation of the plaintiff. Complaint was made in the motion for a new trial that the court erred in failing to charge—though not requested In writing so to do—that the holder of a negotiable promissory note is presumed to be such bona fide and for value. This was a correct principle of law, and applicable to the case, but we think the point was sufficiently covered by what the judge did charge. He instructed the jury that, as the defendant admitted the execution of the note, the burden rested upon him to prove his defense to their satisfaction. As above stated, the only defense was that the note was executed for plaintiff's accommodation. The evidence was undisputed that Stiles received no consideration for making and indorsing it, and that, as to him, it was an accommodation paper. When he indorsed and delivered it to Hodgson, however, it was a negotiable paper, payable to bearer; and, if Hodgson indorsed and delivered it to Shedden for a consideration, then Shedden could hold Stiles liable on it, even though Shedden knew at the time he took it that Stiles had received no consideration. Whether Stiles executed it for a consideration was immaterial. The vital Issue in the case was whether Shedden paid Hodgson a consideration for the instrument. This point was hotly contested, both parties submitting direct and positive testimony in support of their respective contentions on the question. For defendant to prevail, it was absolutely necessary for him to show by a preponderance of the evidence that Shedden did not pay Hodgson a consideration for the paper. When the court instructed the jury that the burden rested on the defendant to prove his case to their satisfaction, it was equivalent, we think, to charging them that defendant must overcome, to their satisfaction, whatever case plaintiff sought to make, whether by way of presumption or by direct and positive evidence. The charge actually given was broader and more favorable to the plaintiff than that which he contends should have been given.
2. At the close of the judge's charge he asked counsel "if there was anything else they desired charged, " and counsel for plaintiff, in reply, orally requested the court to charge that when the note was put in evidence the presumption was that it was a valid note, and that plaintiff was a bona fide holder of the same. The judge refused this request Requests to charge should be in writing (Civ. Code 1895, § 5479), and there is no exception to the rule that a refusal to give an oral request to charge is not ground for a new trial.
3. Hodgson was permitted to testify that he requested Stiles to sign the note, and Stiles that he signed the note at Hodgson's request. This testimony was allowed over the objection of plaintiff that he was not present when the request was made, and did not know of the same. The objection was without merit, as Hodgson also testified that he asked...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Drury
...it creates an "unfair advantage over oral testimony of the other side, by speaking to the jury more than once." Shedden v. Stiles, 121 Ga. 637, 640 (4), 49 S.E. 719 (1905). The typewritten report "was not 'written testimony' as, for example, a deposition is. The written deposition is merely......
-
Norrell v. State, 42820
...in fact these documents were delivered to the jury. Smithwick v. State, 199 Ga. 292, 302(10), 34 S.E.2d 28. Compare, Shedden v. Stiles, 121 Ga. 637, 639(4), 49 S.E. 719; Strickland v. State, 167 Ga. 452, 460(6), 145 S.E. 879; Royals v. State, 208 Ga. 78, 79(2), 65 S.E.2d 5. Enumerations 10,......
-
Johnson v. Bryant, s. 71283
...272 S.E.2d 338; Johnson v. State, 244 Ga. 295, 297, 260 S.E.2d 23; Royals v. State, 208 Ga. 78, 81-82, 65 S.E.2d 158; Shedden v. Stiles, 121 Ga. 637(4), 49 S.E. 719; and Perault v. State, 162 Ga.App. 294, 291 S.E.2d 122 (1982). In Shedden, supra, it was held that generally interrogatories i......
-
Nelson v. State
...would have an unfair advantage over oral testimony of the other side, by speaking to the jury more than once." Shedden v. Stiles, 121 Ga. 637, 640(4), 49 S.E. 719 (1904). Although we do not find a Georgia case involving a search warrant, in Cain v. State, 113 Ga.App. 477, 481(5), 148 S.E.2d......