State Highway Dept. v. Godfrey, 43843
| Decision Date | 28 October 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 43843,No. 3,43843,3 |
| Citation | 164 S.E.2d 340,118 Ga.App. 560 |
| Parties | STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT v. W. H. GODFREY et al |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Arthur K. Bolton, Atty. Gen., Richard L. Chambers, Atlanta, Robert L. Royal, Deputy Asst. Atty. Gen., Rome, John T. Minor, III, Dalton, for appellant.
Mitchell & Mitchell, Coy H. Temples, Erwin Mitchell, Dalton, for appellees.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
Appraisal reports and written memoranda of two witnesses for the condemnor and written memoranda of two witnesses for the condemnee all of whom were testifying as to the value of the property for which condemnation was sought, were admitted in evidence in behalf of the condemnee over objection of the condemnor. On appeal to this court, error is enumerated on these rulings and error is also enumerated on the alleged provision for interest on interest in the judgment entered upon the verdict of the jury. Error is also enumerated upon the motion for new trial complaining of these matters. Held:
1. "A witness may refresh and assist his memory by the use of any written instrument or memorandum, provided he finally shall speak from his recollection thus refreshed, or shall be willing to swear positively from the paper.' Code § 38-1707. This definitely allows oral testimony by a witness which the witness, absent the memorandum, would not be able otherwise to recollect. Does it also form a basis for allowing the written memorandum on which the oral testimony is based to be introduced in evidence? Excluding such memoranda as are admissable by reason of coming under the Business Records Act or because they are part of the res gestae (Davis v. State, 91 Ga. 167(1), 17 S.E. 292), it is generally held that the memorandum has no present evidentiary value, since 'it is not the memorandum that is the evidence, but the recollection of the witness.' Stansall v. Columbian Nat. Life Ins. Co., 32 Ga.App. 87, 91, 122 S.E. 733. An exception is noted where the opposite side wishes to introduce the memorandum in order to weaken the effect of the testimony.' Woodward v. City Council of Augusta, 117 Ga.App. 857, 162 S.E.2d 304. Accordingly, the trial court erred in admitting into evidence the memoranda prepared by the witnesses for the condemnee, but did not err in admitting in evidence the memoranda and appraisal reports of the witnesses for the condemnor.
2. 'In all cases where judgment may be obtained, such judgment shall be entered up for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
JEFFERSON RANDOLPH v. PDS, A01A1590.
...interest. Interest cannot be recovered upon interest, as the trial court appears to have granted. See State Hwy. Dept. v. Godfrey, 118 Ga.App. 560, 561(2), 164 S.E.2d 340 (1968); see also Hubbard v. McRae, 95 Ga. 705, 707, 22 S.E. 714 Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part ANDREWS, ......
-
Southern General Ins. Co. v. Ross
...debt." To the extent the trial court awarded post-judgment interest on interest, its ruling was error. See State Hwy. Dept. v. Godfrey, 118 Ga.App. 560, 561(2), 164 S.E.2d 340 (1968). Furthermore, to the extent the amounts at issue in the declaratory judgment action may have been subject to......
-
Kelley v. State
...he has no independent memory of its contents. Mabry v. Henley, 123 Ga.App. 561, 566, 181 S.E.2d 884 (1971); State Hwy. Dept. v. Godfrey, 118 Ga.App. 560, 164 S.E.2d 340 (1968). As appellant made no objection to the reception of this witness's testimony on the basis that a proper foundation ......
-
Williams v. State, 51091
...businesses. Assuming arguendo that it was error to admit the lists from which the witnesses testified (compare State Highway Dept. v. Godfrey, 118 Ga.App. 560(1), 164 S.E.2d 340 with Davis v. State, 91 Ga. 167(1), 17 S.E. 292), the witnesses were nevertheless authorized to refresh their mem......