Strickland v. English, 42285
| Decision Date | 03 March 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 1,No. 42285,42285,1 |
| Citation | 115 Ga.App. 384,154 S.E.2d 710 |
| Parties | Brady L. STRICKLAND v. Harvey ENGLISH, Jr |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
L. B. Kent, Columbus, for appellant.
Hatcher, Stubbs, Land & Rothschild, J. Rudolph Jones, Albert W. Stubbs, Columbus, for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
1. It was held in State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. v. Brown, 114 Ga.App. 650, 152 S.E.2d 641 that an insurer who had been named a defendant in an action against an uninsured motorist brought under the provisions of the Uninsured Motorist Act (Ga.L.1963, p. 588, as amended by Ga.L.1964, p. 306) had the right to challenge its status as a defendant and was entitled to have its name and all reference to the matter of insurance stricken therefrom. We see no reason why the uninsured motorist against whom the action is brought here, should not have a like privilege for substantially the same reasons: it is prejudicial. Accordingly, the trial court in the present case, an action against an uninsured motorist under the Act, did not err in ordering deleted from the petition a prayer that process issue against a named insurance company.
2. Under the present appellate procedure, we do not have a trial judge's certificate as to the truth of the recitations in a bill of exceptions (bill of exceptions were abolished, see Sec. 3 of the Appellate Practice Act of 1965, Ga.L.1965, p. 18) nor the approval by the court of a motion for new trial as to the truth of the recitations therein contained. Section 16(a), Id. It becomes imperative, therefore, that appellant provide the court with the means to find, in the lower court record or the transcript, the portions thereof material to a decision on the various enumerations of error presented. The burden is not upon this court to find error, but the burden is upon appellant to show it. Where only a few pages of the lower court record in this court are involved in determining whether a petition sets out a cause of action, no problem is presented because of failure to pinpoint a particular portion of the pleading by reference to the particular pages (see Rainey v. Housing Authority of the City of Atlanta, 114 Ga.App. 333(1), 151 S.E.2d 534. The pertinent rules in effect at the time the briefs in this case were filed provide for the division of the brief into two parts and that '(p)art one shall contain a succinct and accurate statement of such pleadings, facts, and issues of law as are made in the appeal and a citation of such other parts of the record or transcript as are essential to a consideration of the errors complained of' (Rule 17(a)(1)), and '(e)ach enumerated error shall be supported in the brief by specific reference to the record or transcript or both' (Rule 17(c)(3)(A)), and '(a)ny argument or assertion, which is founded on a particular portion of the evidence, must be supported by a reference to the page or pages in the transcript where the evidence may be found.' (Rule 17(c)(3)(B)). The enumeration of errors quoted the various alleged charges and requests to charge and quoted alleged extractions from the transcript, but nowhere are there any page references to where these charges, requests to charge, or other matters might be found either in the transcript or in the record. The brief of the appellant, in Part One thereof, merely copies the enumeration of errors. In Part Two (Statement of Facts) there are no references to the record or transcript by page number or otherwise. In Part Three, in arguing the various errors enumerated, the appellant totally fails to make any reference to the transcript or record as to some, and as to others there is only a reference to a portion of the necessary parts of the record or transcript. Enumerations of error Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18 relate to various alleged charges of the court or the failure to charge. In none of these (except one) is there any reference to where the alleged charges as given by the court may be found in the transcript or the alleged requests in the record, nor is there any reference to that portion of the transcript wherein it might be ascertained that the charges given and the requests refused, and the charges not given, were objected to which is necessary to show reversible error. See in this connection Vogt v. Rice, 114 Ga.App. 251(2), 150 S.E.2d 691. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Abdulla v. Pittsburgh & Weirton Bus Co., 13469
...Public Service Co., 266 S.W.2d 597 (Mo.1954); Michalski v. Wagner, 9 Wis.2d 22, 100 N.W.2d 354 (1960). Compare Strickland v. English, 115 Ga.App. 384, 154 S.E.2d 710 (1967); Wright v. Globe Ins. Co., 207 So.2d 889 (La.App.1968); Powers v. Campbell, 79 N.M. 302, 442 P.2d 792 We are in agreem......
-
Home Indem. Co. v. Godley, 45090
...See Wall v. Rhodes, 112 Ga.App. 572, 145 S.E.2d 756; Crider v. State of Georgia, 115 Ga.App. 347, 154 S.E.2d 743; Strickland v. English, 115 Ga.App. 384, 154 S.E.2d 710; Coley v. Smith, 117 Ga.App. 822, 162 S.E.2d 216; Allen v. Carter, 119 Ga.App. 825, 168 S.E.2d 901. Again, under the autho......
-
Jordan v. Ellis
...a cause of action, a verdict for a small amount of damages is proper and should not be disturbed. (Cits.)" Strickland v. English, 115 Ga.App. 384(4), 154 S.E.2d 710, 712; Waggoner v. Bevich, 127 Ga.App. 877, 880, 195 S.E.2d 246. Under the comparative negligence rule, the jury may apportion ......
-
Banks v. City of Brunswick
...plaintiff a cause of action, a verdict for a small amount of damages is proper and should not be disturbed. Cits. Strickland v. English, 115 Ga.App. 384 (4) (154 SE2d 710); Waggoner v. Bevich, 127 Ga.App. 877, 880 (195 SE2d 246). Under the comparative negligence rule, the jury may apportion......