Sullens v. Sullens, 30832
Decision Date | 07 April 1976 |
Docket Number | No. 30832,30832 |
Parties | Robert Lee SULLENS v. Robert Loyed SULLENS. |
Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Robinson, Harben, Armstrong & Millikan, Troy R. Millikan, Gainesville, for appellant.
Oliver & Walters, James M. Walters, Gainesville, for appellee. HALL, Justice.
The appellant sued the appellee for cancellation of a deed alleging that he had signed an instrument that he thought was a will but that the instrument was a deed which conveyed the property of the appellant to the appellee. A jury trial was held and this appeal is from an adverse verdict and judgment. The appellant's attorney on appeal did not participate in the trial of the case. Two enumerations of error relate to the failure of the trial court to charge two specific Code Sections. The third enumeration relates to an alleged error in the charge.
After the conclusion of the trial court's charge to the jury, the appellant's trial attorney was asked if there were any objections to the charge. He replied, 'No Sir.' A party in a civil case cannot complain of the giving or the failure to give an instruction to the jury, unless he objects thereto before the jury returns its verdict. Code Ann. § 70-207(a). The exception to the rule found in Code Ann. § 70-207(c) ( ) is inapplicable Metropolitan Transit System v. Barnette, 115 Ga.,.app. 17, 153 S.E.2d 656 (1967). The appellant's enumerations do not meet the above test.
Judgment affirmed.
All the Justices concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Dendy v. Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority, 63591
...630, 638(6b), 149 S.E.2d 383 (1966).' Metropolitan Transit System v. Barnette, 115 Ga.App. 17, 153 S.E.2d 656 (1967)." Sullens v. Sullens, 236 Ga. 645, 646, 224 S.E.2d 921. Accord, Dehler, et al., v. Setliff, et al., 153 Ga.App. 796, 800(3), 266 S.E.2d 516; Matthews v. Taylor, 155 Ga.App. 2......
- Littles v. DeFrancis
-
Williams v. Kennedy
...630, 638(6b), 149 S.E.2d 383." Metropolitan Transit System v. Barnette, 115 Ga.App. 17, 153 S.E.2d 656 (1967); Sullens v. Sullens, 236 Ga. 645, 224 S.E.2d 921 (1976); Durrett v. Farrar, 130 Ga.App. 298, 306, 203 S.E.2d 265 Appellant's enumeration of error does not meet the test set forth in......
-
Jim Walter Corp. v. Ward
...to it is to result in order to reverse, that is, the error must be substantially harmful as a matter of law. See Sullens v. Sullens, 236 Ga. 645, 224 S.E.2d 921. Under the circumstances of this case any alleged error in the instructions was not so prejudicial as to result in a gross miscarr......