Little v. Little

325 S.E.2d 624, 173 Ga. App. 116, 1984 Ga. App. LEXIS 2742
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedNovember 30, 1984
Docket69054
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 325 S.E.2d 624 (Little v. Little) 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
Little v. Little, 325 S.E.2d 624, 173 Ga. App. 116, 1984 Ga. App. LEXIS 2742 (Ga. Ct. App. 1984).

Opinion

Sognier, Judge.

Mellie Little sued John Little seeking to recover monies she claimed from the sale of her former house and for improvements made to John Little’s house. She also claimed she was entitled either to the title or the value of an automobile in John Little’s possession, as well as damages for conversion of various items of personal property. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Mellie Little and John Little appeals.

1. Appellant contends that the trial court erred by denying his motion for a directed verdict. The standard of appellate review of a trial court’s denial of a motion for a directed verdict is the “any evidence test.” United Fed. Savings &c. Assn. v. Connell, 166 Ga. App. 329, 330 (1) (304 SE2d 131) (1983). Appellee’s evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s verdict. Therefore, the trial court did not err in denying appellant’s motion for directed verdict. See OCGA § 9-11-50 (a); McFarland v. Hodge Homebuilders, Inc., 168 Ga. App. 733 (3) (309 SE2d 853) (1983).

2. Appellant also contends the trial court erred by giving certain charges regarding conversion, beneficial trust, false pretense and false promise. However, appellant failed to object to these charges. A party may not complain of the giving or failure to give an instruction to the jury unless he objects to the instruction before the jury returns its verdict, stating distinctly his objection and the grounds of his objection. OCGA § 5-5-24 (a). “ ‘Failure to except before verdict generally results in a waiver of any defects in the charge [cit.], the exception under [OCGA § 5-5-24 (c)] applying only when there has been a substantial error which was blatantly apparent and prejudicial, and which resulted in a gross miscarriage of justice.’ ” Durrett v. Farrar, 130 Ga. App. 298, 306 (8) (203 SE2d 265) (1973); Hunter v. Batton, 160 Ga. App. 849 (1) (288 SE2d 244) (1982). We find no blatant or prejudicial error in the complained of charges. Therefore, we affirm the judgment.

Judgment affirmed.

McMurray, C. J., and Deen, P. J., concur. *117 Decided November 30, 1984 Rehearing denied December 18, 1984. G. Hughel Harrison, Samuel H. Harrison, for appellant. Troy R. Millikan, for appellee.

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

Related

Pulte Home Corp. v. Woodland Nursery & Landscapes, Inc.
496 S.E.2d 546 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1998)
Ruben's Richmond Department Store v. Walker
490 S.E.2d 536 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1997)
Hayden v. Sigari
467 S.E.2d 590 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1996)
Professional Consulting Services of Georgia, Inc. v. Ibrahim
426 S.E.2d 376 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1992)
O'Quinn v. Southeast Radio Corp.
405 S.E.2d 314 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1991)
Graves v. United Services Automobile Ass'n
379 S.E.2d 638 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1989)
Professional Insurance Services, Inc. v. Sizemore Electric Company, Inc.
373 S.E.2d 276 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1988)
Kittles v. Kittles
370 S.E.2d 803 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1988)
Cooper v. Re/Max North Atlanta, Inc.
366 S.E.2d 328 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1988)
Chrysler Corp. v. Marinari
355 S.E.2d 719 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1987)
Jeff Goolsby Homes Corp. v. Thomas
352 S.E.2d 172 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1986)
Alexie, Inc. v. Old South Bottle Shop Corp.
345 S.E.2d 875 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1986)
Georgia Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance v. Bestawros
340 S.E.2d 645 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1986)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
325 S.E.2d 624, 173 Ga. App. 116, 1984 Ga. App. LEXIS 2742, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/little-v-little-gactapp-1984.