Cox v. Wilson

Supreme Court of Georgia

Cox v. Wilson

157 S.E. 265, 172 Ga. 180, 1931 Ga. LEXIS 48

Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided February 12, 1931·No. No. 7877·Published

Opinion

Russell, C. J.

In this case all questions of law and fact were submitted to an auditor. All ruling's upon the pleadings were included in the submission. After hearing evidence he made a report upon the evidence, denominated a finding of fact, and he also made a finding of law; each finding being in compliance with the provisions of the Code. The defendant filed exceptions to these findings, and to the conclusion reached by the auditor upon the application of the law to the facts as reported by him. The trial judge overruled the exceptions. There was no error in approving the auditor’s findings and in overruling the exceptions.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except Beek, P. J., absent for providential cause.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Russell, C. J.

In this case all questions of law and fact were submitted to an auditor. All ruling's upon the pleadings were included in the submission. After hearing evidence he made a report upon the evidence, denominated a finding of fact, and he also made a finding of law; each finding being in compliance with the provisions of the Code. The defendant filed exceptions to these findings, and to the conclusion reached by the auditor upon the application of the law to the facts as reported by him. The trial judge overruled the exceptions. There was no error in approving the auditor’s findings and in overruling the exceptions.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except Beek, P. J., absent for providential cause.

Cox v. Wilson, 157 S.E. 265, 172 Ga. 180, 1931 Ga. LEXIS 48 (Ga. 1931).

Pincite

157 S.E. 265 (Cox v. Wilson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.