*1 6. again as the case must be general Inasmuch tried usual plaintiff’s grounds be passed for new will upon except to state was not demanded as a verdict matter of law.
Judgment Frankum reversed. Jordan, JJ., concur. STATE 39480. HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT et al.
HOLLIS Decided October 1, 1962.
Eugene Cook, Attorney Carter Goode, At- General, Assistant torney Deputy John T. General, Perren, Assistant Attorney Gen- Eugene eral, B. in Brown, plaintiff error.
Robert Noland, J. contra. new- Judge. grounds of the general The
Bell, trial were abandoned. ground urged
The first special the motion of for new trial thе trial court illegally refusing erred in and admitting, strike, option signed evidence as to Dr. Julia Sutton objection plaintiff. her first рroperty sale condemnor’s admis counsel to this evidence was that it was not it sible it until shown land. The exactly was similаr was whereupon court overruled counsel objection, condemnor’s objected sale ground it shown that the further was objection voluntary compulsion. latter and without was question of another witness subsequently made a further was objection was sustained land. This concerning sale of this it good objection until court ruled any without voluntarily shown sold Dr. Suttоn degree compulsion. questions were further an-
Following asked this, there option given relating to swers sale land objections interposed. option Dr. were Sutton which no without objection. itself was admitted into -assignment error without mеrit The first for the reason is same objected to, other evidence of that, after the evidence ocсurs, objection. without Where this nature was introduced previous and erroneous admission settled well error objection not constitute reversible over does ren- ruling is of the erroneous effect as the nature detrimental with- admission of similar evidence the later dered harmless App. Burson, Ins. Co. out Mutual Life 700, (179 Ga. (10) 390); State, SE Sechler 847). (83 705, 706 SE2d *4 ground 2 the
Special court erred over contends plaintiff made by the motion for after the court ruling mistrial prove price the admitted evidence to the condemnor improperly highway Sutton for agreement with Dr. land for paid had under im assignment of еrror maintains purposes. was from minds the to such evidence the possible eradicate for court the them, gave the court the and jury of the instructions jury con and to complained authorized allowed the the illegal sider аn which determine they standard could measure to the entitled. damages which condemnees were incompеtent
That
evidence is
is clear.
reason
such
proceedings
the
inadmissibility
rule
is that in condemnation
one
cоmpulsion,
are
both condemnor
condemnee
under
and the
give
though
the
the
acquire,
property,
to
to
even
other
and
up,
the
they agree upon
buyer
some
necessities of the
price,
voluntary.
are
that the
be
to- be
seller
such
sale cannot
found
though
the
the seller testified
We consider
be
case even
to
that the sale
was
that she
voluntary,
price,
received a fair
Georgia
satisfied.
(2),
she
Power Co. Brooks,
was
Judgment All Judges concur, except Felton, J.,C. affirmed. Jordan and Russell, JJ., who dissent.
Feltоn, Chief dissenting. Judge, opinion In my the state- ment maj case ority does not clearly show the issue involved. The question, I seе it, as is whether, after the court refused rule illegal out the evidence, evidence same nature was introducеd which was together sufficient, other with legal evidence, to have authorized a finding Highway Department purchased adjoining land from' a Dr. Sutton at named price. If evidence introduced after the above stated ruling by judge did amount tо anything and was not enough prove anything, object failure
674 ruling the exception
did not amount to
the
to the
waiver
a
in-
judge
illegal
refusing to
оut the
evidence.
rule
thing
only
is
ruling
court,
the
the
such
troduced after
Hollis
testimony
a
the
Tom
that
based
is
waiver
be
on,
сould
Dr.
the
that
familiar with
being
as
land
my
follows: “As to
over
Department,
have been
I
Highway
Julia Sutton sold to the
recently. wоuld
ago,
I
years
not
one time
land
a number
is
mine; it
value to
it
say
similarly situated and of similar
is
tes-
.
.”
addition
this
.
In
to
approximately
land
option
Depart-
given
the
Dr. Sutton to the
timony
Highway
right
purchase
ment
a
giving
Highway Department
to
to
the property
$10,065.45
without
introduced
objections
It
urged
true
valid
could have been
to
is
above
to the
the admission
option,
referred to
but
testimony
together
with other
remain-
alone,
or
evidence,
in
a correct
ing
ruling
the record after
the court
Dr.
out,
jury
to rule
authorize
motion
would
a
to find
Department
amount
Highway
for the
Sutton sold
land to
swear
option.
undertaking
stated
witness was not
in
Highway
knowledge
of his
the land
sold to
own
price
he did not state the
Department
was,
and even if
option
sold.
not evidence
a sale at the
which it was
is
admis-
price
purchase
sell
arе not
stated therein. Offers
or
cases
Evidence,
p.
Green,
70,
174,
sible.
Ga. Law of
See,
§
list-
as
Note, A.L.R.
795-96. Accord
781,
cited: “137.
7
2d
(1917),
Davis,
11
84 SE
price, Peagler
(4),
v.
Ga.
59
ing
143
(6),
161
v.
Ga. 93
1917A,
Ann. Cas.
138. Groover
Simmons,
232.
Georgia
Co.
(1925).
Central
129 SE
See also
Power
778
Tucker,
Bell
(1913).
Stone,
Contra:
Judge Russell dissent. Jordan