Watson v. Elberton-Elbert County Hospital Authority
| Decision Date | 06 April 1972 |
| Docket Number | ELBERTON-ELBERT,No. 27027,27027 |
| Parties | George R. WATSON et al. v.COUNTY HOSPITAL AUTHORITY. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Telford, Stewart & Stephens, Charles W. Stephens, Gainesville, J. Cleve Miller, Elberton, for appellants.
Grant & Matthews, William F. Grant, Elberton, for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
Certiorari was granted in this case to review the decision of the Court of Appeals which holds that the deposition of a witness present during a trial but later excused may not be used under the provisions of § 26(d) of the Civil Practice Act (Code Ann. § 81A-126(d)). For a statement of the history of the case and the issues involved, see Elberton-Elbert County Hosp. Auth. v. Watson, 121 Ga.App. 550, 174 S.E.2d 470 and Watson v. Elberton-Elbert County Hosp. Auth., 125 Ga.App. 112, 186 S.E.2d 459.
1. After both sides had completed the presentation of their cases in chief, the plaintiff sought to introduce in rebuttal the deposition of a witness subpoenaed by the defendant, but not called as a witness and excused without the knowledge of the plaintiff at the conclusion of the presentation of evidence in chief. The trial court refused to permit the plaintiff to introduce such deposition because of a pretrial ruling limiting the use of depositions to those of two named witnesses and no others. At the time the trial court refused to permit the plaintiff to use such deposition, he stated that it was based upon his memory of what transpired at the pre-trial hearing, and that his memory could be wrong. The pre-trial hearing was reported, but had not been typed at the time of the trial. A review of this transcript discloses that the trial court did not, in the pre-trial hearing, restrict the use of depositions to any particular depositions, but to the contrary:
It is well settled that the use of depositions in a case like the one sub judice is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court (compare Millholland v. Neal, 118 Ga.App. 566, 164 S.E.2d 451), and the decision of the Court of Appeals holding that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ellington v. State
...an erroneous view of the law which would preclude the exercise of a discretion, a new trial results.Watson v. Elberton–Elbert County Hosp. Auth., 229 Ga. 26, 27, 189 S.E.2d 66 (1972). Compare Braithwaite v. State, 275 Ga. 884, 889, 572 S.E.2d 612 (2002) (finding no reversible error where th......
-
City of Gainesville v. Dodd
...the trial court again review the evidence in the record and from it determine the issue of fact."); Watson v. Elberton-Elbert County Hosp. Auth., 229 Ga. 26, 27, 189 S.E.2d 66 (1972) ("[As] the judgment rendered is based upon an erroneous view of the law which would preclude the exercise of......
-
Res-Ga Ljy, LLC v.
...shows that the trial court recognized the resale decision was a matter within its discretion. Compare Watson v. Elberton–Elbert County Hosp. Auth., 229 Ga. 26, 27, 189 S.E.2d 66 (1972) (holding that trial court's ruling, ordinarily within its discretion, must be reversed where ruling shows ......
-
Spencer v. Dupree
...not accepted. The admissibility of deposition testimony lies within the sound discretion of the court. Watson v. Elberton-Elbert County Hosp. Authority, 229 Ga. 26, 27, 189 S.E.2d 66. Further, it matters not that the deposition was taken primarily for discovery purposes. The trial court mad......