Jeff and Sheila Hughes brought suit against Thomas Sanders, various members of Sanders’ family, and Barry Lewis for wrongful dispossession, trespass, conversion and theft. The jury found in favor of Lewis but returned a verdict in favor of the Hugheses for actual and exemplary damages and attorney fees against the remaining defendants. This appeal ensued.
Appellees responded to a newspaper advertisement placed by appellant Thomas Sanders (hereinafter Sanders) regarding a 1983 mobile home. The parties signed a document whereby appellees paid Sanders $1,000 as down payment for the mobile home and agreed they would continue to make monthly payments until the total amount of the mortgage on the mobile home was paid to the finance company. When appellees fell behind in their payments to the finance company, Sanders signed an affidavit for summons of dispossessory which alleged appellees had failed to pay rent and demanded $624 in past due rent. A writ of possession was subsequently issued. All the appellants participated at different times on the date in issue in en *602 tering appellees’ mobile home, removing appellees’ belongings from the home, and setting those belongings out in the street. The belongings thus dispersed were taken by numerous parties; appellees were able to regain possession of only a small percentage of their belongings;
1. Appellants claim the trial court erred by granting appellees’ motion for a directed verdict with regard to the issue of whether the document entered into by the parties was a lease agreement or a sales contract. In their brief, however, appellants concede that the agreement between the parties was a sales contract and that no landlord-tenant relationship existed between Sanders and appellees at the time of the dispossessory. See generally
Leggitt v. Allen,
Since the parties are in agreement that the document between the parties was a sales contract, not a lease, the trial court did not err by granting appellees’ motion for a directed verdict as to this issue. See generally
Atlanta Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Jones,
2. Appellants allege the trial court erred by charging the jury on the issue of attorney fees. The first sentence of the charge, as contained in the trial transcript, states “[t]he expenses of litigation should not be allowed as a part of damages, but are generally allowed as a part of damages.” In the remainder of the charge, the trial court instructed the jury that expenses of litigation may be allowed under the three conditions enumerated by the trial court (encompassing the provision of OCGA § 13-6-11), that it was necessary to show one of the three conditions existed in order to recover attorney fees but that *603 any one of the three may authorize such damages.
We can fully understand appellees’ assertion that the garbled nature of the first sentence of the charge is due to typographical and other errors in the trial transcript rather than to any statement by the trial judge. However, even assuming the transcript accurately reflects the trial court’s charge, we find the first sentence to constitute a harmless slip of the tongue that, in view of the charge as a whole, could not have led to any misunderstanding or confusion on the part of the jury. See
Grasham v. Southern R. Co.,
Appellants assert in the remaining argument included under this enumeration and in enumerations 3 and 4 that the trial court erred by charging the jury on damages pursuant to OCGA § 51-12-5 and OCGA § 51-12-6. Although we note the trial court did not give the charge on OCGA § 51-12-6 as alleged, it is not necessary to address the merits of these enumerations since the record reveals no objection was made by appellants to that portion of the charge concerning such damages. Failure to object to the trial court’s instruction to the jury before the jury returns its verdict constitutes a waiver of the right to raise the issue on appeal, OCGA § 5-5-24 (a),
Nelson v. Miller,
3. Appellants enumerate as error the trial court’s denial of their motion for a directed verdict made on the basis that appellees had failed to sufficiently prove the specific damages they had suffered and that appellees were entitled only to nominal damages. OCGA § 51-12-4. A grant of directed verdict is proper only if there is no conflict in the evidence as to any material issue and the evidence introduced, with all reasonable deductions therefrom, shall demand a particular verdict. OCGA § 9-11-50 (a). Thus, the standard of appellate review of a trial court’s denial of a motion for directed verdict has always
*604
been that of the “any evidence” test. See
Alexie, Inc. v. Old South Bottle Shop Corp.,
Inasmuch as this evidence and inferences drawn therefrom did not demand a verdict for appellants, the denial of the motion for directed verdict was not error. See generally
Concepts, Inc. v. Innovative Property Mgt.,
4. Appellants also present argument concerning the alleged disparity between the amount of damages proven and the verdict returned by the jury. This argument, however, was not enumerated as error. “This court has no jurisdiction to consider grounds which though argued are not enumerated as error according to OCGA § 5-6-40. [Cits.]”
Sunn v. Trophy Marine,
Judgment affirmed.