Walker v. Fields
| Decision Date | 31 March 1859 |
| Citation | 28 Ga. 237 |
| Parties | WALKER. vs. FIELDS. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Debt, from Henry county. Tried before Judge Caba-Niss, at April Term, 1859.
This was an action by "William B. Fields, for another, against Andrew W. Walker, on a promisory note given in part payment for the building of a merchant mill. The defendant filed his pleas of partial and entire failure of consideration, to-wit: That said mill was not built according to contract, and that the machinery was inefficient and wholly unfit for the purposes contemplated; the contract being set forth in the brief of evidence accompanying the record. Defendant proposed to prove by Dawson, defendant's first miller, in addition to the improper construction of the machinery, that in consequence of the want of durability and efficiency in said machinery, the defendant had been damaged fifteen hundred dollars. This testimony was objected to by plaintiff's counsel on the ground that Dawson was no mill-wright, and his opinion of the damages sustained by defendant was, therefore, inadmissible, unless he would state the facts upon which his opinion was predicated. The court sustained the objection, and counsel for defendant excepted.
Defendant, after having read the contract, and the depositions of Dawson, Key, and Edge, proposed to prove by Thomas A. Adams, a mill-wright, the difference betweena mill built according to the contract and the mill built by Fields, as proven by the witnesses.
Counsel for plaintiff objected, on the ground that witness could give his opinion only upon the facts proven by the other witnesses and not upon their opinions. Defendant's counsel insisted that they, (the contract and the testimony of the witnesses,) were enough to enable Adams to give a correct opinion as to the damages sustained. The court ruled that Adams could testify only from the facts proven, but could not testify as to the damages sustained by defendant from the opinions of the witnesses. For instance, when the witnesses testified to a fact, such as the length and so forth of the shaft, then the witness Adams might give his opinion as to the difference between the value of the thing proven and one properly constructed, and counsel for defendant excepted.
After plaintiff had read his note to the jury, and the evidence of the defendant had closed, plaintiff, in rebuttal read several sets of interrogatories going to prove that the mill was built according to contract. Defendant then offered to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stephen W. Brown Radiology Associates v. Gowers
...An expert may only give opinions on facts testified to by other witnesses but not upon such other witnesses' opinions. Walker v. Fields, 28 Ga. 237(2), 239. A witness' opinion must be his own and he cannot act as a mere conduit for the opinions of others. See Central of Ga. R. Co. v. Brower......
-
Gossett v. State
...824, 830(5), 10 S.E.2d 861; Wigmore on Evidence, vol. II, section 672. (a) The conclusion just stated is not in conflict with Walker v. Fields, 28 Ga. 237(2), to the that an expert may give an opinion as to facts testified to by others, but not as to their opinions. 8. Special ground 13 sho......
-
McCauley v. Boston Old Colony Ins. Co., 57014
...sound for $2,800. An expert may give an opinion upon the facts testified to by other witnesses, but not upon Their opinions. Walker v. Fields, 28 Ga. 237 (2) (1859). See 31 Am.Jur.2d 546, Expert and Opinion Evidence, § 42. Although Hartford's adjustor did receive the benefit of another expe......
-
Stancill v. McKenzie Tank Lines, Inc.
...It has long been the rule in Georgia that an expert may not base his opinion upon an opinion expressed by another witness. Walker v. Fields, Ga.Sup.1859, 28 Ga. 237; Holland Furnace Co. v. Willis, Ga. App.1969, 120 Ga.App. 733, 172 S.E.2d 149, 152. And some Courts of Appeals have held that ......