Willis v. Henry

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

Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia · State Appellate Courts
Decided: April 3, 1957
Docket: No. 36617
Judges: Quillian, Felton, Nichols
Citations: 98 S.E.2d 15095 Ga. App. 5931957 Ga. App. LEXIS 863

Cited by 6

Opinion — Quillian

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.

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.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 6 cases

View all citing references →

Relies on it most ⓘ

Cartin v. Boles270 S.E.2d 799 (Ga. Ct. App. 1980)
Stinespring v. Fields229 S.E.2d 495 (Ga. Ct. App. 1976)
Etheridge v. Hooper121 S.E.2d 323 (Ga. Ct. App. 1961)
Blanton v. Marchbanks228 S.E.2d 285 (Ga. Ct. App. 1976)
Fuller v. Fuller130 S.E.2d 520 (Ga. Ct. App. 1963)
Neal M. Patton, Jr. v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co.387 F.2d 360 (5th Cir. 1968)

Most recent

Cartin v. Boles270 S.E.2d 799 (Ga. Ct. App. 1980)
Stinespring v. Fields229 S.E.2d 495 (Ga. Ct. App. 1976)
Blanton v. Marchbanks228 S.E.2d 285 (Ga. Ct. App. 1976)
Neal M. Patton, Jr. v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co.387 F.2d 360 (5th Cir. 1968)
Fuller v. Fuller130 S.E.2d 520 (Ga. Ct. App. 1963)
Etheridge v. Hooper121 S.E.2d 323 (Ga. Ct. App. 1961)

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 6

Depth	Case	Cited by
	Purvis v. Atlanta Northern Ry. Co., 72 S.E. 343 (Ga. 1911)	11
	Haywood v. State, 39 S.E. 948 (Ga. 1901)	10
	Henderson v. Cook, 108 S.E. 904 (Ga. Ct. App. 1921)	8
	Daughtry v. Ga. Power Co., 6 S.E.2d 454 (Ga. Ct. App. 1939)	7
	Roddy v. Stansbury, 165 S.E. 764 (Ga. Ct. App. 1932)	4
	Story v. Howell, 70 S.E.2d 29 (Ga. Ct. App. 1952)	3

`/`	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