Court Opinion

ID: 9605779
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 02:41:39.688608+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:02:30.327389
License: Public Domain

Evans, Judge,
dissenting.
Lois F. Oakley petitioned the Court of Ordinary of DeKalb County for letters of administration upon the estate of a deceased person. Bernice Anderson opposed the grant of letters. A trial was held in the Ordinary’s Court and Lois F. Oakley prevailed. Bernice Anderson appealed to the Superior Court of DeKalb County; another trial was held, and Lois F. Oakley again prevailed.
Bernice Anderson moved for a new trial, which was denied, and she now appeals to this court. But it is highly significant that she does not bring to us a brief of the evidence whereby this court may be enlightened as to what transpired in the lower court, including what evidence was introduced.
The majority of this court reverses upon the sole ground that Lois F. Oakley "lists as her place of residence a Washington, D. C. address.” The majority then asserts that as a party to the proceeding, she would not be allowed to controvert or disprove this admission without withdrawing same from her pleadings.
*763But in giving sanction to the above rule, we must not overlook or disregard other salient rules of law which are binding upon all courts.
In order to prevent Lois F. Oakley from proving that she resided in Georgia, despite her Washington, D. C. address, it would have been necessary for Bernice Anderson to have made proper objection during the trial to such evidence. See Southern Pine Co. v. Smith, 113 Ga. 629 (3), 633 (38 SE 960); Mickle v. Moore, 193 Ga. 150 (1), 153 (17 SE2d 728). Did she offer evidence to prove she resided in Georgia? Was any objection made thereto? The record "sayeth not” — simply because appellant Anderson has elected not to bring the transcript of evidence to this court. Who wants to reverse the judgment? Whose duty then is it to bring a transcript of the evidence to us so we may see what did and what did not occur in the lower court? Of course, that important obligation rested upon Bernice Anderson, appellant, which duty she shirked.
Oakley, appellee, in her brief, contends that this point — as to residence — has never been made by the lower court — and in the present state of the record, including appellant’s failure to bring to us a transcript, we are bound to agree that the point was not raised in the lower court. And, of course, it is too late to raise for the first time in this court an objection which could and should have been made in the lower court. See Carratt v. Ritsch, 98 Ga. App. 448, 449 (1) (105 SE2d 762); Taylor v. R. O. A. Motors, 114 Ga. App. 671, 676 (152 SE2d 631).
It is presumed that the judgment of the Superior Court of DeKalb County, in denying Bernice Anderson’s motion for new trial, and in approving the verdict in favor of Lois F. Oakley, is correct, and is supported by every ingredient essential to the rendition of that judgment. See Southeastern Pipe-Line Co. v. Garrett, 192 Ga. 817, 824 (16 SE2d 753); Chance v. Chance, 60 Ga. App. 889, 892 (5 SE2d 399); Allen v. Smith, 223 Ga. 265, 266 (2) (154 SE2d 605).
Thus, it must be presumed there was evidence before the lower court which supported the verdict and judgment, including the place of her residence.
Actually, Oakley did not allege in terms that she resided in Washington, D. C., the application for letters *764simply reciting: ". . . whose post office address is 1717 R Street N.W. Apt. 211 Washington, D. C., 20009, and place of residence is ...” A party may have several residences, but only one place of abode. See Davis v. Holt, 105 Ga. App. 125, 129 (123 SE2d 686); Avery v. Bower, 170 Ga. 202 (2), 204-205 (152 SE 239).
The majority opinion mistakenly states at page 759: ". . . plaintiffs contradictory pleadings, if any, are to be construed in favor of the defendant,” and cites nineteen Federal authorities to support this untenable position. This is to completely overlook that in Georgia, since the enactment of the Civil Practice Act in 1966 (see Ga. L. 1966, p. 609 et seq., as thereafter amended), contradictory pleadings of the plaintiff are no longer construed in favor of the defendant, but are now construed most strongly in favor of the pleader, in this instance, the plaintiff. Harper v. DeFreitas, 117 Ga. App. 236 (1) (160 SE2d 260); Hunter v. A-1 Bonding Service, 118 Ga. App. 498 (164 SE2d 246).
I also concur fully in all that is said in Presiding Judge Deen’s dissent.