Plaintiff-wife brought this garnishment against the defendant-husband, and the U. S. Army and Ponderosa Systems, Inc., as garnishees, for arrearages in unpaid alimony and child support. Plaintiff and defendant obtained a divorce in a prior Richmond County civil action. The defendant agreed to pay a fixed sum per month as child support plus an additional sum equal to 25 % of all net increases in defendant’s compensation. Defendant’s net income has increased each year but defendant has not paid to the plaintiff all of the amounts due as fixed child support and none of the support due because of increased income. The defendant’s traverse of the garnishment was denied and he was found to be indebted to plaintiff in the sum of $2,500 and additional child support computed on defendant’s net income. Defendant brings this appeal. Held:
1. The first enumeration of error alleges the trial court “erred in finding judgment in favor of the plaintiff in Garnishment...” The problem presented is three-fold. First, is this enumeration sufficient to set forth a question for this Court to consider? Secondly, if it is sufficient to present an issue — what issue and how many are presented? Last, what would be the merit — if any, of the issue or issues presented?
Our Code requires that the “appellant and cross-aрpellant shall file with the clerk of the appellate court, at such time as may be prescribed by its rules, an enumeration of the errors, which shall set out separately each error relied upon.” (Emphasis supplied.) Code Ann. § 6-810 (Ga. L. 1965, pp. 18, 29; as amended through 1968, pp. 1072,1077). We are further dirеcted that “[w]here it is apparent from the notice of appeal, the record, the enumeration of errors, or any combination of the foregoing, what judgment or judgments were appealed from or what errors are sought to bе asserted upon appeal, *566 the appeal shall be considered in accordance therewith notwithstanding that the notice of appeal fails to specify definitely the judgment appealed from or that the enumeration of errors fails to enumerate clearly the errors sought to be reviewed.” Code Ann. § 6-809 (d) (Ga. L. 1965, pp. 18, 29; as amended through 1972, p. 624).
(a) It is apparent that this enumeration is unduly broad and an appellant could argue any number of possible issues prеsented to the trial court — if we find such “shotgun” attack permissible. Code Ann. § 6-810 does require an appellant to “set out separately each error relied upon.” Thus, such enumeration may contain only one error. See generally 5 CJS 100, Apрeal & Error, § 1254; 5 AmJur2d 112, Appeal & Error, § 661. Any attempt to amend or enlarge an enumeration upon appeal will not be permitted.
Mullis v. Mullis,
(b) Appellate courts have insisted that objections made at trial must be specific, and objections that are “too vague and indefinite” do not require decision by a trial court or an appellate court.
State Hwy. Dept. v. Harrison,
(c) With this historical background, with the advent of the Appellate Practice Act of 1965 (Ga. L. 1965, p. 18; Code Ann. § 6-1205), have appellate practice rules changed as to the specificity required of enumerations of error? In
Wall v. Rhodes,
With the foregoing guidelines, is an enumeration which alleges that “[t]he Court erred in finding judgment in favor of,the Plaintiff . ..” sufficiently definite and specific to designate the error appealed from? Standing alone, the enumeration is too general and vague. See generally 5 AmJur2d 108, Appeаl & Error, § 658. Under the Code (§ 6-809 (d), supra) we next seek assistance from the record and the notice of appeal. Assuming — but not deciding, that the “record” includes the “transcript,” the defendant has failed to furnish us with a transcript, and a review of the record reveals that in his answer the defendant denied the indebtedness and traversed the entry of garnishment and service of garnishment. The record also shows that the defendant filed a motion to dismiss based on “no cause of action,” and that the garnishment аction was not in the correct court. This provides us with five possible grounds for appeal but does not provide us with any guidance as to which one was the basis for the first enumerated error — which may contain only one allegation of errоr.
We turn next to the “notice of appeal” (Code Ann. § 6-809 (d)) for direction. The defendant states therein that “grounds for this appeal are:” (1) the court incorrectly computed his “net income,” (2) the court failed to consider his “higher tax burden,” (3) the court incorrectly found his “two (2) incomes” which resulted in higher taxes did not reduce his “net income,” and (4) the court erred in finding $2,500 was due the plaintiff in addition to sums paid into court by the garnishees.
Finally, we turn to the brief.
Wall v. Rhodes,
In summary, following the directive of Code Ann. § 6-809 (d), we have 5 possible grounds of appeal in the record, 4 different grounds of *569 appeal in the notice of appeal, and under Wall, supra — the briеf explains that the bases of the first enumeration are two different grounds.
Since an enumeration of error must address error committed in the trial court, and may not be amended or changed to add another ground of appeal which was nоt urged before the court, and cannot be enlarged to argue another basis (theory) not made to the trial court, and must contain only one error (Code Ann. § 6-810) — where the enumerated error is so general, and does not contain a key which the brief clarifies to identify the specific error enumerated, and neither the record nor the notice of appeal assists in determining which one specific error is enumerated, we will consider only the general grounds as to the suffiсiency of the facts to support the judgment.
Garland v. State of Ga.,
(d) “Rules of this character are made for a substantial рurpose, not as mere technical pitfalls to catch the unwary. The decision complained of and the error alleged to exist therein ought to appear plainly.”
Patterson v. Beck,
2. The defendant hаs not argued in his brief either of the two remaining enumerations of error and they are considered abandoned. Rule 15 (c) (2) (Code Ann. § 24-3615 (c) (2)). The defendant has advised this court that he will “amend” his brief at a later date. It is permissible to file supplemental briеfs. Rule 17 (a) (Code Ann. § 24-3617 (a)). But such brief may supplement only an original briefs treatment of the same subject. An additional brief may not be used to argue enumerations not argued in the original brief.
Johnson v. Heifler,
3. The defendant has moved this court to direct the Clerk of the trial court to transmit “two items of documentary evidence” in this case. The certificate of the clerk shows that these documents “were
*570
not omitted from the original record” but were filed at a later date. “ ‘The burden is on him who asserts error to show it affirmatively by the record.’ ”
Hancock v. Oates,
Judgment affirmed.