State Highway Dept. v. J. A. Worley & Co.
| Decision Date | 06 January 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 1,No. 38533,38533,1 |
| Citation | 103 Ga.App. 25,118 S.E.2d 298 |
| Parties | STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT v. J. A. WORLEY & COMPANY, Inc |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court.
1, 2. Special grounds 4, 5, 6, 9, 13 and 14 of the condemnor's motion for a new trial are controlled by the decision of this court in State Highway Department v. Robinson, Ga.App., 118 S.E.2d 289; and special grounds 7 and 8 are controlled by the decision of this court in State Highway Department v. Sinclair Refining Co. Ga.App., 118 S.E.2d 293.
3. When the State Highway Department is acting as the condemnor in seeking a right-of-way for a highway, the admission of evidence that the Federal government is participating in such highway project is not error.
4. Evidence of an appraiser's award may be admitted, for the sole purpose of impeaching such appraiser, where on the trial of a condemnation case such appraiser testifies as to a different value from that returned by him under oath originally.
5. No evidence is submitted when a witness, in answer to a question, states that he does not know.
6. It is not error to fail to give a charge not adjusted to the issues.
7. The amount of the verdict was authorized by the evidence.
The State Highway Department filed a condemnation proceeding against a certain tract of land owned by J. A. Worley & Company, Inc. The State sought not only to take a part of the property of the condemnee but also sought the 'right to enter any adjacent land of the condemnee for the purpose of removing or dismantling, in its entirety, any and all structures or buildings or other encroachments, if any, lying wholly or partially within the right-of-way sought to be condemned in this proceeding.' After the award of the assessors was made the judgment of the superior court both the condemnor and the condemnee filed an appeal to the jury. After the issue thus made came on for trial and the jury returned its verdict the condemnor filed a motion for new trial on the usual general grounds which it later amended by adding 12 special grounds numbered 4 thru 15. The trial court overruled the motion for new trial and it is to this judgment that the condemnor now excepts.
Eugene Cook, Atty. Gen., Paul Miller, Deputy Asst. Atty. Gen., Payne & Heard, E. Freeman Leverett, Woodrow Lavender, Elberton, for plaintiff in error.
Williford & Grant, John W. Williford, William F. Grant, Elberton, for defendant in error.
1. Special grounds 4, 5 and 9 of the condemnor's amended motion for new trial are controlled adversely to the condemnor by the decision of this court in the 2nd division of the opinion in the case of State Highway Department v. Robinson, Ga.App., 118 S.E.2d 290, and special grounds 6, 13 and 14 are controlled by the decision in the 3rd division of such opinion.
2. Special grounds 7 and 8 of the condemnor's amended motion for new trial are controlled by the decision of this court in the 2nd and 3rd divisions of the opinion in State Highway Department v. Sinclair Refining Co., Ga.App., 118 S.E.2d 294.
3. Special ground 10 complains that the trial court erred in admitting evidence that the highway project, for which the condemnee's property was being condemned, was a project in which the Federal government was participating. Counsel for the condemnor contends that while such evidence was ruled out it was done outside the presence of the jury, and that the jury was never instructed to disregard such evidence. Was it harmful to admit evidence that the Federal government was participating in the project? The argument in support of such position is that used in tort cases where evidence that the defendant is indemnified by insurance is introduced, and no authority directly in point, either from this or other jurisdictions, is cited by either party. The condemnor does cite the cases of Housing Authority of Savannah v. Savannah Iron etc. Works, 91 Ga.App. 881, 87 S.E.2d 671; and Housing Authority of City of Calhoun v. Spink, 91 Ga.App. 72, 75, 85 S.E.2d 80. The first case is not authority for such position, for there the question presented, was whether the trial court correctly refused to charge on an issue not presented by either the pleadings or evidence. The latter case held that the court did not err in charging that the action was brought under an act of Congress.
Generally, immaterial evidence that is admitted over objection is not ground for a new trial unless such evidence is harmful to the complaining party. Waters v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Department of Transp. v. George
...be admissible to impeach his trial testimony that the value of the property was only $114,500. See State Hwy. Dept. v. J.A. Worley & Co., 103 Ga.App. 25, 28(4), 118 S.E.2d 298 (1961); Georgia Power Co. v. Hudson, 46 Ga.App. 206(3), 167 S.E. 206 (1932). However, that is not what occurred in ......
-
DeKalb County v. Queen
...(Emphasis supplied.) See also State Hwy. Dept. v. Raines, 129 Ga.App. 123, 128, 199 S.E.2d 96, supra; State Hwy. Dept. v. J. A. Worley & Co., 103 Ga.App. 25(4), 118 S.E.2d 298. The witness here testified, outside of the presence of the jury, that, 'I had to agree to sign at this price to ge......
-
State Highway Dept. v. Raines
...him though it is generally inadmissible. Georgia Power Co. v. Hudson. 46 Ga.App. 206(3), 167 S.E. 206; State Highway Dept. v. J. A. Worley & Co., 103 Ga.App. 25(4), 118 S.E.2d 298. The appraisal or the award is generally inadmissible, and cannot be introduced for any purpose other than that......
-
Atlanta Metallic Casket Co. v. Hollingsworth
...the charge. While an unqualified answer that the witness 'does not know' amounts to no evidence, State Highway Dept. v. J. A. Worley & Co., Inc., 103 Ga.App. 25(5), 118 S.E.2d 298, this is not true where the witness, although attempting to qualify his statement or show a doubtful state of m......