Douglas-Guardian Warehouse Corp. v. Todd

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Douglas-Guardian Warehouse Corp. v. Todd

98 S.E.2d 607, 95 Ga. App. 710, 1957 Ga. App. LEXIS 899

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 15, 1957

Docket36626

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 98 S.E.2d 607 (Douglas-Guardian Warehouse Corp. v. Todd) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Douglas-Guardian Warehouse Corp. v. Todd, 98 S.E.2d 607, 95 Ga. App. 710, 1957 Ga. App. LEXIS 899 (Ga. Ct. App. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

Carlisle, J.

Under the statement of facts and rulings contained in the decision of the Supreme Court in transferring this case to this court (Douglas-Guardian Warehouse Corp. v. Todd, 212, Gra. 791, 96 S. E. 2d 275), this court has no recourse but to hold that the judgment overruling and striking the plaintiff’s exceptions of law and fact to the report of the auditor and entering judgment in favor of the defendants was error. “In all law cases where an auditor is appointed, exceptions of fact to his report shall be passed upon by the jury as in other issues of fact, and in equity cases by the jury when approved by the judge.” Code § 10-402. This section has been construed to mean that all proper exceptions of fact to a report of an auditor in law cases must, as a matter of constitutional right, be referred to a jury. Green & Sutton v. Valdosta Guano Co., 121 Ga. 131, 134 (48 S. E. 984); Weed v. Gainesville, Jefferson &c. R. Co., 119 Ga. 576 (46 S. E. 885).

Judgment reversed.

Gardner, P. J., and Townsend, J., concur.

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

Carlisle, J.

Under the statement of facts and rulings contained in the decision of the Supreme Court in transferring this case to this court (Douglas-Guardian Warehouse Corp. v. Todd, 212, Gra. 791, 96 S. E. 2d 275), this court has no recourse but to hold that the judgment overruling and striking the plaintiff’s exceptions of law and fact to the report of the auditor and entering judgment in favor of the defendants was error. “In all law cases where an auditor is appointed, exceptions of fact to his report shall be passed upon by the jury as in other issues of fact, and in equity cases by the jury when approved by the judge.” Code § 10-402. This section has been construed to mean that all proper exceptions of fact to a report of an auditor in law cases must, as a matter of constitutional right, be referred to a jury. Green & Sutton v. Valdosta Guano Co., 121 Ga. 131, 134 (48 S. E. 984); Weed v. Gainesville, Jefferson &c. R. Co., 119 Ga. 576 (46 S. E. 885).

Judgment reversed.

Gardner, P. J., and Townsend, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

98 S.E.2d 607, 95 Ga. App. 710, 1957 Ga. App. LEXIS 899, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/douglas-guardian-warehouse-corp-v-todd-gactapp-1957.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack