Sullens v. Sullens

Sullens v. Sullens, 224 S.E.2d 921 (Ga. 1976)

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia · State Highest Courts
Decided: April 7, 1976
Docket: No. 30832
Judges: Hall
Citations: 224 S.E.2d 921236 Ga. 6451976 Ga. LEXIS 974

Opinion — Hall

Hall, Justice.

The appellant sued the appellee for cancellation of a deed alleging that he had signed an instrument that he thought was a will but that the instrument was a deed which conveyed the property of the appellant to the *646 appellee. A jury trial was held and this appeal is from an adverse verdict and judgment. The appellant’s attorney on appeal did not participate in the trial of the case. Two enumerations of error relate to the failure of the trial court to charge two specific'Code sections. The third enumeration relates to an alleged error in the charge.

Submitted February 16, 1976 Decided April 7, 1976.

Robinson, Harben, Armstrong & Millikan, Troy R. Millikan, for appellant.

Oliver & Walters, James M. Walters, for appellee.

After the conclusion of the trial court’s charge to the jury, the appellant’s trial attorney was asked if there were any objections to the charge. He replied, "No, Sir.” A party in a civil case cannot complain of the giving or the failure to give an instruction to the jury, unless he objects thereto before the jury returns its verdict. Code Ann. § 70-207 (a). The exception to the rule found in Code Ann. § 70-207 (c) (harmful as a matter of law) is inapplicable "unless it appears that the error contended is 'blatantly apparent and prejudicial’

(Hollywood Baptist Church v. State Highway Dept., 114 Ga. App. 98, 99 (3) ( 150 SE2d 271 ) (1966), and that a 'gross miscarriage of justice attributable to it is about to result.’

Nathan v. Duncan, 113 Ga. App. 630, 638 (6b) ( 149 SE2d 383 )

(1966).”Metropolitan Transit System v. Barnette, 115 Ga. App. 17 ( 153 SE2d 656 ) (1967). The appellant’s enumerations do not meet the above test.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 24 cases

View all citing references →

Relies on it most ⓘ

Williams v. Kennedy240 S.E.2d 51 (Ga. 1977)
Fowler v. Gorrell251 S.E.2d 819 (Ga. Ct. App. 1978)
Stoddard v. Board of Tax Assessors295 S.E.2d 170 (Ga. Ct. App. 1982)
Sutphin v. McDaniel278 S.E.2d 490 (Ga. Ct. App. 1981)
Jim Walter Corp. v. Ward258 S.E.2d 159 (Ga. Ct. App. 1979)
Dendy v. Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority293 S.E.2d 372 (Ga. Ct. App. 1982)

Most recent

Marshall v. York302 S.E.2d 711 (Ga. Ct. App. 1983)
Stoddard v. Board of Tax Assessors295 S.E.2d 170 (Ga. Ct. App. 1982)
Dendy v. Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority293 S.E.2d 372 (Ga. Ct. App. 1982)
Sutphin v. McDaniel278 S.E.2d 490 (Ga. Ct. App. 1981)
Matthews v. Taylor270 S.E.2d 247 (Ga. Ct. App. 1980)
Dehler v. Setliff266 S.E.2d 516 (Ga. Ct. App. 1980)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 3

Depth	Case	Cited by
	Nathan v. Duncan, 149 S.E.2d 383 (Ga. Ct. App. 1966)	84
	Hollywood Baptist Church of Rome v. State Highway Dep't, 150 S.E.2d 271 (Ga. Ct. App. 1966)	44
	Metro. Transit Sys., Inc. v. Barnette, 153 S.E.2d 656 (Ga. Ct. App. 1967)	17

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`x`	Add / remove the selected result from the download list
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list