Alston v. Smith

Supreme Court of Georgia

Alston v. Smith

14 S.E.2d 483, 192 Ga. 42, 1941 Ga. LEXIS 405

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedApril 16, 1941

Docket13656.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 14 S.E.2d 483 (Alston v. Smith) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Alston v. Smith, 14 S.E.2d 483, 192 Ga. 42, 1941 Ga. LEXIS 405 (Ga. 1941).

Pincite

Opinion

Grice, Justice.

1. A ground, of a motion for new trial complaining of the admission in evidence of “all of the receipts being held by Ozella Smith, being signed by Miss Ina Alston for W. G. Turpin & Company, and receipts signed by Miss Ina Alston for no specified reason,” no receipts being set forth or otherwise described or specified, does not adequately present any question for decision.

2. In a suit to enjoin a sale under a power in a security deed, it will not require the grant of a new trial that the court permitted a witness to identify another security deed given to a stranger, and allowed its introduction in evidence over the objection then and there made that the evidence was prejudicial and hurtful to the movant, for the reason that it confused the minds of the jury, and was misleading; it affirmatively and sufficiently appearing that the court admitted the evidence for a limited purpose only, and no copy of the court’s instructions to the jury being contained in the record; and the objection being too vague and indefinite to present any question for decision.

3. The evidence on the controlling issues was in sharp conflict. The verdict was supported, and there was no abuse of discretion in refusing to grant a new trial on the general grounds.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur. *43 M. Davis, for plaintiff in error. T. T. Molnar, contra.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Grice, Justice.

1. A ground, of a motion for new trial complaining of the admission in evidence of “all of the receipts being held by Ozella Smith, being signed by Miss Ina Alston for W. G. Turpin & Company, and receipts signed by Miss Ina Alston for no specified reason,” no receipts being set forth or otherwise described or specified, does not adequately present any question for decision.

2. In a suit to enjoin a sale under a power in a security deed, it will not require the grant of a new trial that the court permitted a witness to identify another security deed given to a stranger, and allowed its introduction in evidence over the objection then and there made that the evidence was prejudicial and hurtful to the movant, for the reason that it confused the minds of the jury, and was misleading; it affirmatively and sufficiently appearing that the court admitted the evidence for a limited purpose only, and no copy of the court’s instructions to the jury being contained in the record; and the objection being too vague and indefinite to present any question for decision.

3. The evidence on the controlling issues was in sharp conflict. The verdict was supported, and there was no abuse of discretion in refusing to grant a new trial on the general grounds.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur. *43 M. Davis, for plaintiff in error. T. T. Molnar, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

14 S.E.2d 483, 192 Ga. 42, 1941 Ga. LEXIS 405, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alston-v-smith-ga-1941.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack