Thompson v. Gore

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Thompson v. Gore

105 S.E.2d 359, 98 Ga. App. 231, 1958 Ga. App. LEXIS 550

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 22, 1958

Docket37266

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 105 S.E.2d 359 (Thompson v. Gore) 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

Thompson v. Gore, 105 S.E.2d 359, 98 Ga. App. 231, 1958 Ga. App. LEXIS 550 (Ga. Ct. App. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

Carlisle, Judge.

1. “ ‘The testimony of a party who offers himself as a witness in his own behalf is to be construed most strongly against him when it is self-contradictory, vague, or equivocal. W. & A. R. Co. v. Evans, 96 Ga. 481 (23 S. E. 494); Freyermuth v. R. Co., 107 Ga. 32 (32 S. E. 668); Ray v. Green, 113 Ga. 920 [39 S. E. 470]; Farmer v. Davenport, *232 118 Ga. 289 (45 S. E. 244). And he is not entitled to- a finding in his favor if that version of his testimony the most unfavorable to him shows that the verdict should be against him. Southern Bank v. Goette, 108 Ga. 796 (33 S. E. 974).’ Southern Railway Co. v. Hobbs, 121 Ga. 428 (49 S. E. 294).” Davis v. Akridge, 199 Ga. 867 (2) (36 S. E. 2d 102).

Decided .September 22, 1958. Hicks & Henderson, J. Douglas Henderson, for plaintiff in error. Reed, Ingram & Flournoy, R. M. Reed, Robert E. Flournoy, Jr., contra.

2. Accordingly, where in this suit to recover for damages to an automobile owned by the plaintiff incurred in a collision with an automobile owned by the defendant, the following question and answer thereto was made by the plaintiff on cross-examination: “Q. And at that time and upon the payment of that did you sign a paper, or did you assign the right of action, make an assignment to the State Farm Mutual Insurance Company did you assign the car over to them? A. Yes, I did,” and, while elsewhere, the plaintiff testified that the State Farm Mutual Insurance Company did not pay her for the full value of the automobile, and where her testimony in regard to the matter of assignment may be said otherwise to be vague, equivocal, and self-contradictory, such testimony when construed most strongly against the plaintiff under the above stated rule of law showed that she had assigned any right of action she may have had to the State Farm Mutual Insurance Company, and the trial court did not err in granting a nonsuit.

Judgment affirmed.

Gardner, P. J., and Townsend, J., concur.

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

Carlisle, Judge.

1. “ ‘The testimony of a party who offers himself as a witness in his own behalf is to be construed most strongly against him when it is self-contradictory, vague, or equivocal. W. & A. R. Co. v. Evans, 96 Ga. 481 (23 S. E. 494); Freyermuth v. R. Co., 107 Ga. 32 (32 S. E. 668); Ray v. Green, 113 Ga. 920 [39 S. E. 470]; Farmer v. Davenport, *232 118 Ga. 289 (45 S. E. 244). And he is not entitled to- a finding in his favor if that version of his testimony the most unfavorable to him shows that the verdict should be against him. Southern Bank v. Goette, 108 Ga. 796 (33 S. E. 974).’ Southern Railway Co. v. Hobbs, 121 Ga. 428 (49 S. E. 294).” Davis v. Akridge, 199 Ga. 867 (2) (36 S. E. 2d 102).

Decided .September 22, 1958. Hicks & Henderson, J. Douglas Henderson, for plaintiff in error. Reed, Ingram & Flournoy, R. M. Reed, Robert E. Flournoy, Jr., contra.

2. Accordingly, where in this suit to recover for damages to an automobile owned by the plaintiff incurred in a collision with an automobile owned by the defendant, the following question and answer thereto was made by the plaintiff on cross-examination: “Q. And at that time and upon the payment of that did you sign a paper, or did you assign the right of action, make an assignment to the State Farm Mutual Insurance Company did you assign the car over to them? A. Yes, I did,” and, while elsewhere, the plaintiff testified that the State Farm Mutual Insurance Company did not pay her for the full value of the automobile, and where her testimony in regard to the matter of assignment may be said otherwise to be vague, equivocal, and self-contradictory, such testimony when construed most strongly against the plaintiff under the above stated rule of law showed that she had assigned any right of action she may have had to the State Farm Mutual Insurance Company, and the trial court did not err in granting a nonsuit.

Judgment affirmed.

Gardner, P. J., and Townsend, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

105 S.E.2d 359, 98 Ga. App. 231, 1958 Ga. App. LEXIS 550, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thompson-v-gore-gactapp-1958.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack