Walker v. Fields

Supreme Court of Georgia

Walker v. Fields

28 Ga. 237

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedMarch 15, 1859

StatusPublished

Cited by21 cases

This text of 28 Ga. 237 (Walker v. Fields) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Walker v. Fields, 28 Ga. 237 (Ga. 1859).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court.

Lumpkin, J.,

delivering the opinion.

1. The court, so far as the bill of exceptions shows, made no decision as to the admissibility of Dawson’s testimony. Had this evidence been rejected, as it probably was, it -would have been, right. It was a mere matter of opinion; and ho was not a mill-wright but a miller only.

2. We concur with the court that Thomas A. Adams, as an expert, could only give an opinion upon the fads testified to by Dawson, Key and Edge, and not upon their opinions.

3. The rejection by the court of the sur-rebutting testimony of McNeely, Gresham, Grafton and Smith, was wrong. True, it was cumulative; but the defendant could not have anticipated the proof offered by the plaintiff in rebuttal to establish the fact that the mill was built according to contract. It behooved him, therefore, to support his defence by additional evidence, and he had a right to do so, especially as it does not appear that any of the plaintiff’s witnesses had left the court; or that he was hurt by the direction given to the testimony.

Judgment reversed.

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

By the Court.

Lumpkin, J.,

delivering the opinion.

1. The court, so far as the bill of exceptions shows, made no decision as to the admissibility of Dawson’s testimony. Had this evidence been rejected, as it probably was, it -would have been, right. It was a mere matter of opinion; and ho was not a mill-wright but a miller only.

2. We concur with the court that Thomas A. Adams, as an expert, could only give an opinion upon the fads testified to by Dawson, Key and Edge, and not upon their opinions.

3. The rejection by the court of the sur-rebutting testimony of McNeely, Gresham, Grafton and Smith, was wrong. True, it was cumulative; but the defendant could not have anticipated the proof offered by the plaintiff in rebuttal to establish the fact that the mill was built according to contract. It behooved him, therefore, to support his defence by additional evidence, and he had a right to do so, especially as it does not appear that any of the plaintiff’s witnesses had left the court; or that he was hurt by the direction given to the testimony.

Judgment reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

28 Ga. 237, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/walker-v-fields-ga-1859.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack