6 S.E.2d 380 | Ga. Ct. App. | 1939
The verdict was authorized by the evidence, and the court did not err in overruling the defendant's motion for new trial.
The only special ground of the motion for new trial was the exception to the allowance of the following testimony of B. E. Neal: "I am a practicing attorney at Summerville, and was engaged in the practice of law here in November, 1932. The deed which you hand me purporting to be a quitclaim deed to S. M. Baugh and his wife, Mrs. L. L. Baugh, from Mr. A. S. Robbins, dated the 15th day of November, 1932, and which has been introduced in evidence by the plaintiff in this case — I have a definite recollection of having drawn that deed. When that deed was drawn there was something said about a house located on this land before the conversation was closed in my office. I wouldn't try to say the exact words, but I know it was understood the house was to be delivered at some future time to Mr. Baugh. Mr. Robbins and Mr. Baugh were both there at that time. I not only drew this deed, but it was executed in my presence." This evidence was objected to on the ground that Robbins was not a party to the present case, and that Patterson was not present when the alleged statement was made. Other testimony had been introduced upon the trial of the case, without objection, to the effect that Robbins told Baugh, when he sold him the land, that the house was on the land that was being conveyed, and he pointed it out to Baugh as being located thereon, and told him he was to have possession on January 1, 1933; that Robbins went with Baugh to the house now in question and there *272
told Patterson in Baugh's presence that he had sold the property to Baugh and his wife and that they were to have possession of the house on January 1, 1933. In other words, other evidence to the same effect as that of Judge B. E. Neal had been admitted without objection, and for this reason it was not error for the court to admit his testimony over objection. "Evidence substantially the same as that complained of in grounds 4, 6, and 7 was admitted without objection, and `whether the court erred in allowing a particular witness to testify about certain facts over objection is immaterial where the same facts were shown by other evidence to which no objection was made.' Copeland v. Ruff,
Judgment affirmed. Stephens, P. J., and Sutton and Felton,JJ., concur.