Kelly v. Malone
This text of 63 S.E. 639 (Kelly v. Malone) 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.
Opinion
1. A motion to strike a paragraph, of the defendant’s answer is an oral demurrer thereto. Exception to the judgment rendered! upon such a motion must be preserved by exceptions pendente lite, unless the bill of exceptions is certified within thirty days from the day [619]*619of the judgment of which complaint is made. A ruling upon a motion ta strike either a part or the whole of a defendant’s answer can not be reviewed by a motion for new trial.
2. It is not error to exclude evidence which is not pertinent to the pleadings,
(a) Where both parties to a cause rely upon an express contract, and are in conflict only as its terms, and this is the only issue raised by the pleadings, it is pot error to exclude 'testimony as to the value of services which were the subject-matter of the contract; nor is it error to refuse to allow proof that others had offered to perform such services for a different amount. Jacobus v. Wood, 84 Ga. 639 (2, 4), (10 S. E. 1099).
3. The verdict was authorized by the evidence, and there was no error in refusing a new trial. Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
63 S.E. 639, 5 Ga. App. 618, 1909 Ga. App. LEXIS 89, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kelly-v-malone-gactapp-1909.