lawskills
Loading
Did you know you can download our entire database for free?


Resources
[more] 

Georgia Caselaw:
Browse
Greatest Hits

Georgia Code: Browse

(external) Findlaw Georgia Law Resources


This site exists because of donors like you.

Thanks!


Lawskills.com Georgia Caselaw
WHEELER v. MCDONALD et al.
70747.
CARLEY, Judge.
Action for damages. Whitfield Superior Court. Before Judge Temples.
Appellant initiated the instant suit naming appellees as defendants, and seeking damages for alleged devastavit of the estate of C. D. McCutchen, by F. Kelly McCutchen, deceased. The complaint further alleged that F. Kelly McCutchen was a successor executor and appellees are the co-executrixes of F. Kelly McCutchen's estate. Appellant also alleged the following: that the estate had included real property and a certain home; that F. Kelly McCutchen allowed the house to deteriorate; and that appellant is an heir at law of C. D. McCutchen. See generally OCGA 53-7-167; Bailey v. McAlpin, 122 Ga. 616 (50 SE 388) (1905). At trial, following the close of appellant's evidence, the trial court granted appellees' motion for directed verdict. Appellant appeals.
1. Appellant enumerates as error a ruling by the trial court admitting a certain letter into evidence for impeachment purposes only. Appellant contends that the letter, which contains a prior inconsistent statement, should have been admitted as substantive evidence. See Gibbons v. State, 248 Ga. 858, 862 (286 SE2d 717) (1982).
The record reveals that at trial, appellant sought to introduce the letter into evidence solely and expressly for the purpose of impeachment. The trial court ruled that the evidence was admissible for impeachment purposes, and gave the jury limiting instructions. Appellant made no objection to the trial court's ruling, and did not request that the letter be admitted as substantive evidence. Appellant will not now be permitted to complain on appeal. See Baranan v. Fulton County, 250 Ga. 531, 534 (3) (299 SE2d 722) (1983); Smith v. State, 116 Ga. App. 45, 48 (3) (156 SE2d 380) (1967).
2. Appellant also enumerates as error the grant of appellees' motion for directed verdict. "A directed verdict is proper only where there is no conflict in the evidence as to any material issue and the evidence introduced together with all reasonable deductions or inferences therefrom demands a particular verdict. OCGA 9-11-50 (a) [Cits.]" Carver v. Jones, 166 Ga. App. 197, 199 (3) (303 SE2d 529) (1983).
Accordingly, we find that the evidence and all reasonable deductions therefrom, considered in a light most favorable to appellant, demanded a directed verdict in favor of appellees.
3. Appellees have moved for the imposition of damages for a frivolous appeal pursuant to OCGA 5-6-6. Although we find no merit in appellant's enumeration of error, we cannot conclude that the appeal was totally frivolous or solely for purposes of delay. Accordingly, appellees' motion for the assessment of penalties is denied.
E. Crawford McDonald, Nancy E. Bradshaw, for appellees.
Glen M. Vey, for appellant.
DECIDED SEPTEMBER 4, 1985.
Thursday May 21 16:05 EDT


This site exists because of donors like you.

Thanks!


Valid HTML 4.0!

Valid CSS!





Home - Tour - Disclaimer - Privacy - Contact Us
Copyright © 2000,2002,2004 Lawskills.com