This is аn action brought by the Building Inspector of Coffee County to enjoin the defendant from operating a junkyard in a zone confined to residential use and in violation of a county zoning resolution. The case proceeded to trial and at the close of the evidence both parties moved for a directed verdict. The trial judge directed a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. A judgment was entered thereon permanently еnjoining the defendant from operating the junk yard in violation of the zoning resolution. The defendant, filed a motiоn for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict and, in the alternative, for a new trial. The trial judge overruled the motion for nеw trial, whereupon the defendant filed a notice of appeal which appealed from thе judgment of the trial judge entered in this action on April 5, 1965, and the order of the judge denying the motion for new trial entеred on October 8, 1965.
The case was originally taken to the Court of Appeals where the following errors were enumerated: that the court erred in directing a verdict against the defendant; that the court erred in admitting into evidence a zoning ordinance and map; that the court erred in admitting the zoning map; that the сourt erred in admitting parol evidence by the plaintiff to prove the adoption and passage of the zoning ordinance and map.
Upon transfer of the case to this court, the appellee, рlaintiff below, moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the appellant is seeking the grant of a nеw trial, that in order for this court to grant such relief it would be necessary to reverse the judgment of the trial court in overruling the motion for new trial and that the appellant failed to enumerate as error that judgment; hеnce, this court does not have jurisdiction of the case. In response to this motion the appellаnt attempted to add by amendment the following specification of error: “the court erred in denying the appellant a new trial.” Held:
1. This case was originally docketed in the Court of Appeals on November 9, 1965. Thе time for filing the enumeration of errors had already expired before the case was transferred hеre by order of the Court of Appeals, dated November 29, 1965. Thus, the attempt to amend the enumeration of-errors which was filed here on December 8, 1965, came too late and *774 was a nullity. We therefore consider the case as made by the original enumeration of errors which was timely filed.
2. The appelleе contends the appeal must be dismissed since the enumeration of errors did not contain a specification that the overruling of the ■ appellant's motion for new trial was error. The notice of aрpeal was taken both to the judgment entered upon the directed jury verdict and to the judgment overruling the mоtion for new trial. Furthermore, while there was no express specification of error to the overruling of the motion for new trial, the enumeration of errors was inclusive of the grounds of the motion for new trial. In such circumstances, the motion to dismiss must be denied.
3. The controlling question presented on the merits of the case is whether the court erred in admitting a certain map which purportedly was part of the county zoning resolution and contained the various zoned areas covered by the resolution. The resolution included thе following reference to a map: “The boundaries of each district are hereby established as shown on a map entitled: ‘Zoning Map, Coffee County, Georgia/ adopted____________________, 19._______, and certified by the County Clerk of Coffee County. Said map and all explanatory matter thereon accompanies and is hereby made a part of this resolution; it shall be on file in the office of the Building Inspector of Coffee County.” The mаp tendered into evidence was entitled “Zoning Map, Coffee County, Georgia,” but was not dated or cеrtified by the county clerk. The appellee attempted to prove the map was the same as that referred to in -the resolution by his own oral testimony. The appellant objected both to the map and to the parol evidence offered to authenticate the map on the grounds that the maр was not sufficiently identified and that parol evidence to substantiate the same was not admissible.
Under the viеw we take of this case, the map was inadmissible. While the adoption of documents in ordinances by incorporation by reference is valid where the document adopted is sufficiently identified and made a рart of the public record
(Friedman v. Goodman,
Judgment reversed.