Jarriel v. Savannah Guano Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Jarriel v. Savannah Guano Co.

128 S.E. 237, 34 Ga. App. 72, 1925 Ga. App. LEXIS 41

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 18, 1925

Docket16018

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 128 S.E. 237 (Jarriel v. Savannah Guano Co.) 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

Jarriel v. Savannah Guano Co., 128 S.E. 237, 34 Ga. App. 72, 1925 Ga. App. LEXIS 41 (Ga. Ct. App. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

Jenkins, P. J.

Testimony without probative value, even though admitted without objection, will not support or sustain a verdict. Roesel v. Green, 28 Ga. App. 694 (1) (113 S. E. 35). Mere hearsay is without probative value. Whittle v. Citizens Bank of Ashburn, 29 Ga. App. 308, 309 (114 S. E. 920); Rabun v. Commercial Nat. Bank, 21 Ga. App. 43 (93 S. E. 524). But “where, in a claim case, it was admitted the defendant in fi. fa. was in possession of the land levied on at the time of the levy, any declarations made by the defendant up to the time of the levy and while in possession were admissible in evidence.” Rutledge v. Hudson, 80 Ga. 266 (6) (5 S. E. 93) ; Smiley v. Padgett, 123 Ga. 39 (50 S. E. 927). Furthermore, “the language of the witness that it was his ‘understanding’ as to certain facts, otherwise positively stated, can not be rejected as hearsay, but, without further explanation, will be taken as resting upon actual facts within the personal knowledge of the witness. Such a statement could have been tested on cross-examination, and, in the absence of any modification or explanation on further examination, or any exception after timely objection to such evidence, can not be disregarded.” Bull v. Carpenter, 32 Ga. App. 637, 639 (124 S. E. 381). Consequently, where on the trial of a claim to a certain crop of tobacco levied upon after maturity and gathering, it appeared that the defendant in fi. fa. was in possession at the time of the levy, and a witness testified that the defendant in fi. fa. told him at the time the note and mortgage ■ was taken that the crop raised on his place was his, and that he [73]*73(the witness) “understood all along that the crop was his” (the defendant’s in fi. fa.), there being no exception taken to such evidence, and no modification or explanation of the statement upon further examination, this court can not as a matter of law say that a verdict against the claimant was without evidence to support it.

Decided May 18, 1925. B. G. Collins, B. W. Barnes, for plaintiff in error. H. C. Beasley, contra.

Judgment affirmed.

Stephens and Bell, JJ., concur.

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

Jenkins, P. J.

Testimony without probative value, even though admitted without objection, will not support or sustain a verdict. Roesel v. Green, 28 Ga. App. 694 (1) (113 S. E. 35). Mere hearsay is without probative value. Whittle v. Citizens Bank of Ashburn, 29 Ga. App. 308, 309 (114 S. E. 920); Rabun v. Commercial Nat. Bank, 21 Ga. App. 43 (93 S. E. 524). But “where, in a claim case, it was admitted the defendant in fi. fa. was in possession of the land levied on at the time of the levy, any declarations made by the defendant up to the time of the levy and while in possession were admissible in evidence.” Rutledge v. Hudson, 80 Ga. 266 (6) (5 S. E. 93) ; Smiley v. Padgett, 123 Ga. 39 (50 S. E. 927). Furthermore, “the language of the witness that it was his ‘understanding’ as to certain facts, otherwise positively stated, can not be rejected as hearsay, but, without further explanation, will be taken as resting upon actual facts within the personal knowledge of the witness. Such a statement could have been tested on cross-examination, and, in the absence of any modification or explanation on further examination, or any exception after timely objection to such evidence, can not be disregarded.” Bull v. Carpenter, 32 Ga. App. 637, 639 (124 S. E. 381). Consequently, where on the trial of a claim to a certain crop of tobacco levied upon after maturity and gathering, it appeared that the defendant in fi. fa. was in possession at the time of the levy, and a witness testified that the defendant in fi. fa. told him at the time the note and mortgage ■ was taken that the crop raised on his place was his, and that he [73]*73(the witness) “understood all along that the crop was his” (the defendant’s in fi. fa.), there being no exception taken to such evidence, and no modification or explanation of the statement upon further examination, this court can not as a matter of law say that a verdict against the claimant was without evidence to support it.

Decided May 18, 1925. B. G. Collins, B. W. Barnes, for plaintiff in error. H. C. Beasley, contra.

Judgment affirmed.

Stephens and Bell, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

128 S.E. 237, 34 Ga. App. 72, 1925 Ga. App. LEXIS 41, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jarriel-v-savannah-guano-co-gactapp-1925.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack