Herrington v. Baird

Supreme Court of Georgia

Herrington v. Baird

138 S.E. 774, 164 Ga. 332, 1927 Ga. LEXIS 187

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedJune 20, 1927

DocketNo. 5632

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 138 S.E. 774 (Herrington v. Baird) 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

Herrington v. Baird, 138 S.E. 774, 164 Ga. 332, 1927 Ga. LEXIS 187 (Ga. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

Hill, J.

Mrs. Lula Baird brought a petition against A. P. Herrington as executor, for an equitable accounting; and the case was referred to an auditor. On the hearing before the auditor the plaintiff amended her petition and struck all allegations that the defendant was the duly qualified executor of J. C. Baird, and that all of his acts for and concerning the estate of J. C. Baird were without legal authority and void. On motion of counsel for the defendant the auditor dismissed the case, on the ground that plaintiff had changed her cause of action by this amendment. The auditor subsequently made his report to the court, stating that he had dismissed the ease for the foregoing reason. On motion of plaintiff’s counsel the case was recommitted to the auditor by the court. To this judgment the defendant excepted.

The judgment recommitting the case ' is not a final judgment of the court, and therefore the writ of error must be and is dismissed. Civil Code (1910), § 6138. The action of the auditor in dismissing the case without the approval of the court would not of itself operate to dismiss the case, and can not be held to be a final disposition of the cause, or final as to some material party thereto. Writ of error dismissed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Hill, J.

Mrs. Lula Baird brought a petition against A. P. Herrington as executor, for an equitable accounting; and the case was referred to an auditor. On the hearing before the auditor the plaintiff amended her petition and struck all allegations that the defendant was the duly qualified executor of J. C. Baird, and that all of his acts for and concerning the estate of J. C. Baird were without legal authority and void. On motion of counsel for the defendant the auditor dismissed the case, on the ground that plaintiff had changed her cause of action by this amendment. The auditor subsequently made his report to the court, stating that he had dismissed the ease for the foregoing reason. On motion of plaintiff’s counsel the case was recommitted to the auditor by the court. To this judgment the defendant excepted.

The judgment recommitting the case ' is not a final judgment of the court, and therefore the writ of error must be and is dismissed. Civil Code (1910), § 6138. The action of the auditor in dismissing the case without the approval of the court would not of itself operate to dismiss the case, and can not be held to be a final disposition of the cause, or final as to some material party thereto. Writ of error dismissed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

138 S.E. 774, 164 Ga. 332, 1927 Ga. LEXIS 187, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/herrington-v-baird-ga-1927.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack