Greyhound Corp. v. Clough, 87 S.E.2d 387 (Ga. 1955). · Go Syfert
Search
Greyhound Corp. v. Clough, 87 S.E.2d 387 (Ga. 1955). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
40 citation events across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Choate v. Carter, 105 S.E.2d 909 (Ga. Ct. App. 1958)
Treatment trajectory · 1955 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1955 1990 2026
How cited ↗
Cited for
q1 “the overruling of an objection to- the admission of testimony on the ground that it is 'irrelevant and immaterial' is not reversible error.”0 citing cases1 citing court quotes it
    Other citing cases1 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
    Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
    The Greyhound Corporation
    v.
    Clough
    18875.
    Supreme Court of Georgia.
    May 9, 1955.
    Published opinion
    87 S.E.2d 387
    1955 Ga. LEXIS 395
    Gambrell, Harlan, Barwick, Russell & Smith, James C. Hill, for plaintiff in error., A. Walton Nall, A. Paul Cadenhead, contra.
    Candler, Wyatt.
    Cited by 20 opinions  |  Published
    Candler, Justice.

    1. This court, in considering the question of the grant of an application for the writ of certiorari, and, if granted in disposing of the case, will consider only the rulings made by the Court of Appeals upon which error is assigned in the application for the writ. Certiorari Rule 45, Code § 24-4549; Mitchell v. Owen, 159 Ga. 690 (127 S. E. 122); Simpson v. Bradley, 189 Ga. 316 (5 S. E. 2d 893); Golfas v. Ailor, 206 Ga. 76 (55 S. E. 2d 582); Trammell v. Throgmorton, 210 Ga. 659 (82 S. E. 2d 140), and citations.

    2. The overruling of an objection to the admission of testimony on the ground that it is “irrelevant and immaterial” is not reversible error. Kirkland v. Ferris, 145 Ga. 93 (88 S. E. 680); Richardson v. John Hancock Mutual Life Ins. Co., 167 Ga. 340 (145 S. E. 448); Pippin v. State, 205 Ga. 316 (6) (53 S. E. 2d 482); Middleton v. Waters, 205 Ga. 847 (55 S. E. 2d 359). In Middleton’s case, where there was an objection to the admission of certain documents on the ground that they were “irrelevant, immaterial, and illustrative of no issue in said case, but tended to confuse the issues,” we unanimously held that the objection was too general to present anything for consideration.

    3. Since no valid objection was made to the admission of the testimony complained of when it was offered on the trial, it necessarily follows that the ruling of the Court of Appeals is erroneous.

    Judgment reversed.

    All the Justices concur, except Wyatt, P. J., absent on account of illness.