Elders v. Griner

150 S.E. 857, 40 Ga. App. 649, 1929 Ga. App. LEXIS 685
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedDecember 10, 1929
Docket20079
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 150 S.E. 857 (Elders v. Griner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Elders v. Griner, 150 S.E. 857, 40 Ga. App. 649, 1929 Ga. App. LEXIS 685 (Ga. Ct. App. 1929).

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

1. “The approval by the judge of a brief of evidence, under an order allowing him to do so at the hearing of a motion for a new trial, and making provision for its. subsequent filing, is the equivalent * of an entry of filing upon the brief by the clerk.” Anderson v. Sapp, 135 Ga. 204 (3) (69 S. E. 181), and cit. Under this ruling and the facts of the instant case, the motion to dismiss the brief of evidence, the amendment to the motion for a new trial, and the bill of exceptions is denied.

2. The first special ground of the motion for a new trial, complaining of the exclusion of the testimony of a certain witness, fails to show reversible error, since substantially the same testimony was given by other witnesses and admitted in evidence.

3. The court properly excluded the hearsay testimony set out in the remaining special ground of the motion.

4. “To constitute a valid gift, there must be the intention to give by the donor, acceptance by the donee, and a delivery of the article given, or some act accepted by the law in lieu thereof.” Civil Code (1910), § 4144.

(a) Where the gift of a bank cheek is accepted, the failure of the donee to present it to the bank for payment before the death of the donor does not operate as a revocation of the gift. Philpot v. Temple Banking Co., 3 Ga. App. 742 (2-d), 747 (60 S. E. 480). Especially is this true where the gift was not made by the donor in expectation of his death.

5. Under the above-stated rulings and the facts of the present case, the verdict in favor of the plaintiff was amply authorized by the evidence, and the refusal to grant a new trial was not error.

Judgment affirmed.

Luke and Bloodioorth, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Pope v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.
258 S.E.2d 14 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1979)
Holsomback v. Akins
215 S.E.2d 306 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1975)
Todd v. Fellows
131 S.E.2d 577 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1963)
Southern Railway Co. v. Garner
114 S.E.2d 211 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1960)
Felder v. Felder
32 S.E.2d 550 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1944)
Head v. Georgia Power Company
27 S.E.2d 339 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1943)
Atlanta & West Point Railroad v. Truitt
16 S.E.2d 273 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1941)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
150 S.E. 857, 40 Ga. App. 649, 1929 Ga. App. LEXIS 685, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/elders-v-griner-gactapp-1929.