Fitzgerald v. Woodward

167 S.E. 170, 176 Ga. 109, 1932 Ga. LEXIS 399
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedDecember 14, 1932
DocketNo. 9275
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 167 S.E. 170 (Fitzgerald v. Woodward) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Fitzgerald v. Woodward, 167 S.E. 170, 176 Ga. 109, 1932 Ga. LEXIS 399 (Ga. 1932).

Opinion

Beck, P. J.

The assignment of error copied in the statement of facts above, when properly construed, complains only of the judgment rendered against Fitzgerald on the 29th of June, 1932. The reasons assigned are that the judgment was rendered without giving time for counsel to present the facts necessary to a clear understanding of the cause before rendering judgment, and further upon the ground that it is contrary to law and contrary to the evidence. The judgment must be affirmed, for the following reasons.

(a) No facts are given' upon which it may be determined whether the court abused its discretion in refusing to allow further time to. counsel to present facts.

.(b) The judgment is based upon conflicting evidence.

(r) When the exceptions to the auditor’s report are examined, it appears that such exceptions are not complete within themselves. An exception to an auditor’s report "should state what was the ruling complained of, the evidence on that point, and state of what and wherein the error consisted.” Weldon v. Hudson, 120 Ga. 699, 702 (48 S. E. 130).

(d) Under the construction of the assignments of error as stated above, there is no complaint in the bill of exceptions to the overruling of the motion to recommit the report to the auditor and overruling the motion of Fitzgerald to dismiss and disregard the report of the auditor.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Related

Reynolds v. Smith
199 S.E. 137 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1938)
Almand v. Crockett
179 S.E. 99 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1935)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
167 S.E. 170, 176 Ga. 109, 1932 Ga. LEXIS 399, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fitzgerald-v-woodward-ga-1932.