Murphy v. District Grand Lodge No. 18

97 S.E. 858, 148 Ga. 648, 1919 Ga. LEXIS 5
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedJanuary 14, 1919
DocketNo. 830
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 97 S.E. 858 (Murphy v. District Grand Lodge No. 18) 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
Murphy v. District Grand Lodge No. 18, 97 S.E. 858, 148 Ga. 648, 1919 Ga. LEXIS 5 (Ga. 1919).

Opinion

Fish, O. J.

1. “Where exceptions of law and fact to an auditor’s report in an equitable case were filed, and were overruled by the presiding judge, this was not a final judgment. . . Civil Code (1910), § 5147”; Prater v. Crawford, 143 Ga. 709 (85 S. E. 829); Kency v. District Grand, Lodge, 148 Ga. 515 (97 S. E. 439).

2. Hester Murphy et al. were intervenors in the case of Jones et al. v. District Grand Lodge No. 18, etc. The claim of the intervenors was referred to an auditor, who, after a hearing, made and filed his report containing his findings of law and findings of fact, to which, findings of both law and of fact the intervenors filed exceptions; upon a hearing of which the court made the following order: “This case coming on for a hearing on exceptions of fact and law, and after hearing the same, it is considered, ordered, and adjudged by the court that the exceptions of fact are disapproved and the exceptions of law overruled.” The intervenors assigned error upon the granting of this order. The bill of exceptions contains no other assignment of error, nor is it stated therein that anything further was done in the case. Under the numerous rulings of this court, two of which are above cited, the motion to dismiss the writ of error must be sustained.

3. The ruling herein made can not be adversely affected by the following recital in the bill of exceptions, viz.: “That the said order and judgment of the court . . was and is a final determination of said case.” Such recital is not borne out by the record.

Bill of exceptions dismissed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Related

Bryan v. Digby
144 S.E.2d 230 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1965)
Farrar v. Ainsworth
60 S.E.2d 366 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1950)
Furlow v. Sanders
9 S.E.2d 715 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1940)
Moncrief v. Rimer
181 S.E. 169 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1935)
Harwell v. Cowan
165 S.E. 19 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1932)
Lingo v. Rich
151 S.E. 387 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1929)
Huson v. Bank of Covington
123 S.E. 742 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1924)
Southern Moon Auto Co. v. Moon Motor Car Co.
114 S.E. 68 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1922)
Winder Lumber Co. v. Washington Brick Co.
99 S.E. 863 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1919)
Mathewson v. Reed
99 S.E. 854 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1919)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
97 S.E. 858, 148 Ga. 648, 1919 Ga. LEXIS 5, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/murphy-v-district-grand-lodge-no-18-ga-1919.