Opinion
42984.
SUBMITTED SEPTEMBER 7, 1967.
DECIDED FEBRUARY 28, 1968. REHEARING DENIED MARCH 14, 1968.
Action on note. Fulton Civil Court. Before Judge Williams.
Robert Carpenter, A. Tate Conyers, for appellant.
Lee Evans, for appellee.
1. The evidence in support of the plea of no consideration in this suit on ten notes was sufficient to authorize the verdict for defendant. See Potts v. Levin, 113 Ga. App. 4, 6 ( 147 S.E.2d 1).
2. The fourth ground of the motion for new trial contends that the court erred in recharging the jury pursuant to defendant's objections. As plaintiff made no objection on the trial to the additional matter charged, this ground presents nothing for review. E.g., Georgia Power Co. v. Maddox, 113 Ga. App. 642, 647 ( 149 S.E.2d 393).
3. It was not error to exclude evidence on cross examination of defendant and another witness as to whether the other witness had advised defendant that it was a good deal to sign the notes or that it was a good deal to have an interest in a liquor store. The questions asked were not sufficiently related to any issue being tried in the case. Whether the answers were affirmative or negative, the evidence would have been irrelevant.
4. It was not error to exclude defendant's testimony on cross examination as to the value she placed on certain stock certificates in filing her income tax return. Code § 38-203. Here a copy of the tax return would have been the best evidence as to contents of the return. See Ridley v. Ridley, 25 Ga. App. 154, 157 ( 102 S.E. 918).
Judgment affirmed. Pannell and Whitman, JJ., concur.
SUBMITTED SEPTEMBER 7, 1967 — DECIDED FEBRUARY 28, 1968 — REHEARING DENIED MARCH 14, 1968 — CERT. APPLIED FOR.
Leonard Levin sued Imogene Potts on ten $1,000 notes, and defendant filed a plea of no consideration. The first trial resulted in judgment for plaintiff, which was reversed by this court. Potts v. Levin, 113 Ga. App. 4, supra. The new trial resulted in judgment for defendant.
The evidence on the new trial showed that Myers, Doyal and plaintiff's brother, Mayer, owned all the shares of Bee Cee, Inc. The corporation owned land or an interest in land on which Brown operated a liquor store. These premises were condemned for highway purposes. Thereafter a new corporation, Cee Bee, Inc., was formed with Myers, Doyal and Mayer each owning approximately 1/3 of the shares. On April 10, 1961, Cee Bee, Inc., leased land for a new liquor store near the old location. Plaintiff was the organizer of the new business for the corporation. Brown acquired a transfer of his liquor license to the new location, and Cee Bee, Inc., constructed a building and subleased the premises to him at a monthly rental of 9% of the liquor sales. The new store opened October 1, 1961.
Prior to that date, plaintiff had arranged the transfer of Myers' interest in the corporation to Douglas Wood, an Atlanta alderman and real estate broker who negotiated the lease for the corporation. At some time before the new store was opened, plaintiff delivered to Wood a stock certificate representing Myers' interest, originally issued to Mayer and endorsed in blank. Wood testified that the certificate was given to him in payment, in addition to his customary broker's commission for negotiating the lease, and that he felt he should not retain the certificate because of his political position.
Defendant testified that Wood transferred the certificate to her in March, 1961. Both defendant and Wood testified that several months before the notes sued on were executed he gave her the certificate in payment of an obligation he owed her for services, which she valued at $10,000, in connection with his real estate business. The notes, dated October 2, 1962, and payable on demand, were executed in the summer of 1961 at a meeting at which defendant, Wood and plaintiff were present. Defendant and Wood testified that plaintiff demanded that defendant personally reimburse him for sums paid to appease Brown, who was dissatisfied because he had not shared in the condemnation proceeds, and that she gave the notes to plaintiff as payee pursuant to this demand and received nothing in return. Plaintiff testified that defendant gave the notes in payment for the stock certificate which he had obtained for Wood and that he delivered the certificate to Wood only after the notes were executed.