H. D. Hammond, individually and as executor under the will of E. J. Hammond, deceased, and Eunice Clark Hammond brought this action to set aside a lease of real property and farm equipment entered into by the deceased, as lessor, and Paul, as lessee. The case was submitted to the jury on a single issue, namely, whether the deceased was of sound mind at the time the lease was made. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Paul, and the Hammonds appeal.
(1) The Hammonds contend that the verdict and judgment are contrary to law and to the evidence. There was ample testimony at trial to the effect that the deceased was of sound mind at the time the lease was made. Although there was some evidence to the contrary, the determination of the jury will not be disturbed on appeal, no material error of law appearing.
Smith v. Merck,
In connection with these general grounds of appeal the Hammonds contend that the lease is void for lack of consideration. The case was tried on the single issue of mental competence. A careful examination of the record indicates that no motion for a directed verdict was made, nor was the issue of lack of consideration presented
*242
to the trial judge.
1
Issues never raised at trial will not be considered for the first time on appeal.
Carter v. Pruitt,
(2) The Hammonds assert as error the allowance of testimony concerning contents of the will of the deceased. It was not error to admit this testimony, as similar evidence of other witnesses was admitted without objection.
Sikes v. Wilson,
Judgment affirmed.
Notes
Testimony of the lessee that he had not paid anything for the lease, standing alone, is not sufficient to raise the issue of consideration for the purpose of appeal. Although the Hammonds filed a motion for judgment
non obstante veredicto,
this cannot be treated as raising the issue of consideration, as a motion for directed verdict is a prerequisite to such a motion.
Kiser v. Kiser,