Duncan v. Coleman

Supreme Court of Georgia

Duncan v. Coleman

144 S.E. 18, 166 Ga. 632, 1928 Ga. LEXIS 365

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedJuly 12, 1928

DocketNo. 6478

StatusPublished

This text of 144 S.E. 18 (Duncan v. Coleman) 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

Duncan v. Coleman, 144 S.E. 18, 166 Ga. 632, 1928 Ga. LEXIS 365 (Ga. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

Gilbert, J.

1. Where error is assigned on a refusal of the court to allow a witness on direct examination to answer a question, and it is not stated what the answer would have been, no point is raised for the consideration of this court. McElwaney v. MacDiarmid, 131 Ga. 97 (2a) (62 S. E. 20) ; Wyche v. Bank of Campbell County, 161 Ga. 329 (6) (130 S. E. 566), and cit.; Eliopolo v. Eicholz, 161 Ga. 823 (3) (131 S. E. 896).

2. Error is assigned on the rejection of evidence, on the ground that the court erroneously ruled that the evidence offered was a conclusion. The evidence rejected was the opinion of the witness that the testatrix “did not know the children of her dead sons and daughter.” Opinion evidence [633]*633is admissible on the question of mental capacity; but the mere opinion here expressed by the witness is not of such materiality that the ruling thereon would require a reversal, even though it were admissible.

No. 6478. July 12, 1928. G. B. Walker, Mozley & Gann, and II. B. Moss, for plaintiffs in error. Morris, Hcmkins & Wallace, contra.

3. On the issue as to whether the verdict is demanded by the evidence the entire court of six Justices are equally divided in opinion, Russell, C. J., Beck, P. J., and Hines, J., being of the opinion that the evidence is not sufficient, and Atkinson, Hill, and Gilbert, JJ., being of the contrary opinion; and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed by operation of law on this question.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except as slated in the third headnote.

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

Gilbert, J.

1. Where error is assigned on a refusal of the court to allow a witness on direct examination to answer a question, and it is not stated what the answer would have been, no point is raised for the consideration of this court. McElwaney v. MacDiarmid, 131 Ga. 97 (2a) (62 S. E. 20) ; Wyche v. Bank of Campbell County, 161 Ga. 329 (6) (130 S. E. 566), and cit.; Eliopolo v. Eicholz, 161 Ga. 823 (3) (131 S. E. 896).

2. Error is assigned on the rejection of evidence, on the ground that the court erroneously ruled that the evidence offered was a conclusion. The evidence rejected was the opinion of the witness that the testatrix “did not know the children of her dead sons and daughter.” Opinion evidence [633]*633is admissible on the question of mental capacity; but the mere opinion here expressed by the witness is not of such materiality that the ruling thereon would require a reversal, even though it were admissible.

No. 6478. July 12, 1928. G. B. Walker, Mozley & Gann, and II. B. Moss, for plaintiffs in error. Morris, Hcmkins & Wallace, contra.

3. On the issue as to whether the verdict is demanded by the evidence the entire court of six Justices are equally divided in opinion, Russell, C. J., Beck, P. J., and Hines, J., being of the opinion that the evidence is not sufficient, and Atkinson, Hill, and Gilbert, JJ., being of the contrary opinion; and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed by operation of law on this question.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except as slated in the third headnote.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

144 S.E. 18, 166 Ga. 632, 1928 Ga. LEXIS 365, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/duncan-v-coleman-ga-1928.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack