This case involves an appeal by J. C. Dim-mick, appellant herе, from a judgment of the trial court based upon a directed verdiсt in favor of J. B. Pullen, appellee here, for the principаl balance due on a promissory note executed by Dimmick as maker to Pullen as payee, sued on by way of counterclaim by Pullen against Dimmick in a suit originally filed by Dimmick against Pullen, which as to the -main suit was disposed of by the Supreme Court of Georgia in
Dimmick v. Pullen,
1. Whether or not a party may be allowed to reopen his case after he has rested and present additional evidence is a matter within the discretion of the trial judge.
Jackson v. Ga. R. & Bkg. Co., 7
Ga. App. 644 (4) (
It does not appear from the record in this case that the court abused its discretion in allowing the appellee to reopen its case for the purpose of tendering certain documentary evidence which had been previously authenticated аnd identified. Accordingly, it was not error, as contended, to deny appellant’s motion for a directed verdict made upon the grоund that certain documents crucial to appellee’s сlaim (seeking a recovery on the unpaid balance of а promissory note) were not in evidence where the apрellee was allowed to reopen his case and havе such documents admitted into evidence. With such documents in evidenсe a verdict was not demanded for the appellant.
2. The rеmaining enumerations in this case are that the trial court erred in granting appellee’s motion for directed verdict.
The appellant has cited several cases stating that the question for decision in passing on a motion for directed verdict is whether the еvidence demands a verdict in favor of the movant or, stated otherwise, that the motion should be denied if there is any evidence in the record which if believed would authorize a verdict for the oрposing party. In further support of appellant's contention there is only a conclusory statement that at the trial the appellant “submitted certain fact questions which required submissions of same to the jury.” There is no further argument or elaboration in the brief; there is no reference made in the enumerations or the brief as to where in the record or transcript any evidence supporting the appellant’s contention can be found. Thus these enumerations have been abandoned for lack of argument.
Strickland v. English,
The аppellant has filed a reply brief and a supplemental briеf in which there is elaboration on the enumerations now under discussion. Under the rules of this court (Rule 16) supplemental briefs may be filed at аny time before a decision. But if an enumeration is abandoned at the outset by failure to file a brief or supplemental briefs within the time allowed (Rule 15) containing argument, then there remains, with regard to all enumerations which have been so abandoned, nothing to supplement.
3. The motion to dismiss the appeal is without merit.
Judgment affirmed.