Willis v. Henry

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Willis v. Henry

98 S.E.2d 150, 95 Ga. App. 593, 1957 Ga. App. LEXIS 863

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 3, 1957

Docket36617

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 98 S.E.2d 150 (Willis v. Henry) 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

Willis v. Henry, 98 S.E.2d 150, 95 Ga. App. 593, 1957 Ga. App. LEXIS 863 (Ga. Ct. App. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

Quillian, J.

1. In the plaintiff’s argument of the general grounds he insists that the defendant was impeached because of contradictory statements he made in reference to the amount of money he had paid the plaintiff for his labors, and therefore there was no evidence to support the verdict. While it may be true that the witness was impeached as to this portion of his testimony, this would not prevent the jury from believing the remainder of his testimony. Purvis v. Atlanta Northern Ry. Co., 136 Ga. 852 (2) (72 S. E. 343); Haywood v. State, 114 Ga. 111 (1) (39 S. E. 948); Henderson v. Cook, 27 Ga. App. 512 (1) (108 S. E. 904). The remaining testimony was sufficient to support the verdict, and the general grounds are without merit.

2. Special ground 1 complains that certain testimony, consisting of a conversation between the defendant and two of his employees, was hearsay and should not have been admitted. This ground is without merit because the evidence was admitted for the purpose of explaining the conduct and ascertaining the motive of the defendant. Code § 38-302.

3. Special grounds 2, 3, 5, 7 and 8 deal with the measure of damages and are without merit because, the jury having returned *594 a verdict for the defendant, these errors, if any, are harmless. Roddy v. Stansbury, 45 Ga. App. 705 (165 S. E. 764); Daughtry v. Ga. Power Co. 61 Ga. App. 505 (6 S. E. 2d 454); Story v. Howell, 85 Ga. App. 661, 671 (70 S. E. 2d 29). None of the other special grounds show merit and the trial judge did not err in denying the motion for new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Felton, C. J., and Nichols, J., concur.

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

Quillian, J.

1. In the plaintiff’s argument of the general grounds he insists that the defendant was impeached because of contradictory statements he made in reference to the amount of money he had paid the plaintiff for his labors, and therefore there was no evidence to support the verdict. While it may be true that the witness was impeached as to this portion of his testimony, this would not prevent the jury from believing the remainder of his testimony. Purvis v. Atlanta Northern Ry. Co., 136 Ga. 852 (2) (72 S. E. 343); Haywood v. State, 114 Ga. 111 (1) (39 S. E. 948); Henderson v. Cook, 27 Ga. App. 512 (1) (108 S. E. 904). The remaining testimony was sufficient to support the verdict, and the general grounds are without merit.

2. Special ground 1 complains that certain testimony, consisting of a conversation between the defendant and two of his employees, was hearsay and should not have been admitted. This ground is without merit because the evidence was admitted for the purpose of explaining the conduct and ascertaining the motive of the defendant. Code § 38-302.

3. Special grounds 2, 3, 5, 7 and 8 deal with the measure of damages and are without merit because, the jury having returned *594 a verdict for the defendant, these errors, if any, are harmless. Roddy v. Stansbury, 45 Ga. App. 705 (165 S. E. 764); Daughtry v. Ga. Power Co. 61 Ga. App. 505 (6 S. E. 2d 454); Story v. Howell, 85 Ga. App. 661, 671 (70 S. E. 2d 29). None of the other special grounds show merit and the trial judge did not err in denying the motion for new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Felton, C. J., and Nichols, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

98 S.E.2d 150, 95 Ga. App. 593, 1957 Ga. App. LEXIS 863, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/willis-v-henry-gactapp-1957.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack