Forbes v. Davis

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Forbes v. Davis

69 S.E. 1132, 8 Ga. App. 560, 1911 Ga. App. LEXIS 48

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 24, 1911

Docket2609

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 69 S.E. 1132 (Forbes v. Davis) 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

Forbes v. Davis, 69 S.E. 1132, 8 Ga. App. 560, 1911 Ga. App. LEXIS 48 (Ga. Ct. App. 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

Powell, J.

This case, which was an action at law, was. referred to an auditor, who filed a report. The plaintiff in error, to whom-the report was adverse, filed a motion to rerefer, and exceptions of law and exceptions of fact. The trial judge struck them all and directed a verdict in favor of the defendant in error, in accordance with the findings of the auditor. Neither the motion to rerefer nor the exceptions of law were well taken.' It might have been more formal for the court to have overruled the latter, rather than to have sustained the motion to strike, but the effect is the same.

[561]*561It was error to strike the exceptions to the finding of fact. If the case had been pending in equity, the exceptions would have been insufficient; but in cases at law a general exception that a finding is contrary to the evidence is adequate. Green v. Valdosta Guano Co., 121 Ga. 131 (48 S. E. 984). It is true that under the act creating the city court, in which the case was tried, jury trial is waived unless demanded, but this fact does not render the error of the court’s striking the exceptions harmless. Tt gave the judge the power of himself examining the exceptions on their merits, or, if he so chose, of referring them to a jury, but not the right of striking them and directing a verdict. Cf. Pelham Mfg. Co. v. Powell, ante, 38 (68 S. E. 519). Judgment reversed.

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

Powell, J.

This case, which was an action at law, was. referred to an auditor, who filed a report. The plaintiff in error, to whom-the report was adverse, filed a motion to rerefer, and exceptions of law and exceptions of fact. The trial judge struck them all and directed a verdict in favor of the defendant in error, in accordance with the findings of the auditor. Neither the motion to rerefer nor the exceptions of law were well taken.' It might have been more formal for the court to have overruled the latter, rather than to have sustained the motion to strike, but the effect is the same.

[561]*561It was error to strike the exceptions to the finding of fact. If the case had been pending in equity, the exceptions would have been insufficient; but in cases at law a general exception that a finding is contrary to the evidence is adequate. Green v. Valdosta Guano Co., 121 Ga. 131 (48 S. E. 984). It is true that under the act creating the city court, in which the case was tried, jury trial is waived unless demanded, but this fact does not render the error of the court’s striking the exceptions harmless. Tt gave the judge the power of himself examining the exceptions on their merits, or, if he so chose, of referring them to a jury, but not the right of striking them and directing a verdict. Cf. Pelham Mfg. Co. v. Powell, ante, 38 (68 S. E. 519). Judgment reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

69 S.E. 1132, 8 Ga. App. 560, 1911 Ga. App. LEXIS 48, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/forbes-v-davis-gactapp-1911.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack