Case ID: ga-app_25/html/0309-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Broyles, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

11349.
    Gordon v. Foundation Company.
    Decided May 11, 1920.
    Action for damages; from city court of Savannah — Judge Freeman. November 24, 1919.
    As to the amendment offered by the plaintiff, it appeared from the judge’s note, qualifying the bill of exceptions, that when counsel for the plaintiff was allowed to reopen the case for the purpose of introducing additional testimony after a motion for a nonsuit had been made, he stated that he desired to offer an amendment, but he did not then tender it, and at the conclusion of the additional testimony the judge asked if he had anything further to offer, and he replied that he had not. The motion for a nonsuit was renewed and granted, and the amendment was not tendered until the next day.
    
      Kenan & Ulmer, for plaintiff in error.
    
      O’Byrne, Hartridge & Wright, contra.
   Broyles, C. J.

1. Under repeated rulings of the Supreme Court and of this court, that an exception to the refusal to allow a witness, on the direct examination, to answer a question will not be considered by the reviewing court unless it affirmatively appears that the trial judge was notified at the time of the ruling what answer was expected from the witness, the several exceptions to the refusal of the court to allow certain named witnesses to answer certain questions is not considered.

2. Under the facts of the case, as disclosed by the note of the trial judge qualifying his approval of the bill of exceptions, it was not error to disallow the proffered amendment to the plaintiff’s petition.

3. The evidence adduced by the plaintiff not authorizing a finding by the jury that the defendant was negligent in any of the ways alleged in the petition, the court did not err in awarding a nonsuit.

Judgment affirmed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.