Persons v. Persons

Supreme Court of Georgia

Persons v. Persons

155 S.E. 27, 171 Ga. 212, 1930 Ga. LEXIS 312

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 20, 1930

DocketNo. 7482

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 155 S.E. 27 (Persons v. Persons) 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

Persons v. Persons, 155 S.E. 27, 171 Ga. 212, 1930 Ga. LEXIS 312 (Ga. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

Rtjssell, C. J.

1. The defendant excepts to the judgment of the court sustaining the ruling of the auditor overruling the demurrer to the petition. The demurrer was based upon the ground, among others, that it was multifarious. The grounds other than that of multifariousness are without merit. The judgment sustaining this ruling of the auditor would not require a reversal even if the ground of demurrer as to multifariousness was good, the auditor having found against the plaintiffs on the cause of action which the defendant contends rendered the petition multifarious, to which ruling no exception was taken. By this finding the error alleged was rendered harmless.

2. Exceptions of fact to the report of an auditor, which fail to specifically state grounds of exception as well as portions of the record upon which they are based, are properly dismissed. Wlierein the error alleged lay must be clearly set forth in the exception. Mason v. Commissioners, 104 Ga. 35 (30 S. E. 513); Hudson v. Hudson, 119 Ga. 637 (46 S. E. 874); Baxter v. Camp, 126 Ga. 354 (54 S. E. 1036); Faucett v. Rogers, 152 Ga. 172 (108 S. E. 798); Bacon v. Bacon, 161 Ga. 978 (133 S. E. 512); Coosa Land Co. v. Edgerton, 165 Ga. 808 (142 S. E. 149).

3. There being evidence to support the auditor’s report, it was not error to sustain it. Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Rtjssell, C. J.

1. The defendant excepts to the judgment of the court sustaining the ruling of the auditor overruling the demurrer to the petition. The demurrer was based upon the ground, among others, that it was multifarious. The grounds other than that of multifariousness are without merit. The judgment sustaining this ruling of the auditor would not require a reversal even if the ground of demurrer as to multifariousness was good, the auditor having found against the plaintiffs on the cause of action which the defendant contends rendered the petition multifarious, to which ruling no exception was taken. By this finding the error alleged was rendered harmless.

2. Exceptions of fact to the report of an auditor, which fail to specifically state grounds of exception as well as portions of the record upon which they are based, are properly dismissed. Wlierein the error alleged lay must be clearly set forth in the exception. Mason v. Commissioners, 104 Ga. 35 (30 S. E. 513); Hudson v. Hudson, 119 Ga. 637 (46 S. E. 874); Baxter v. Camp, 126 Ga. 354 (54 S. E. 1036); Faucett v. Rogers, 152 Ga. 172 (108 S. E. 798); Bacon v. Bacon, 161 Ga. 978 (133 S. E. 512); Coosa Land Co. v. Edgerton, 165 Ga. 808 (142 S. E. 149).

3. There being evidence to support the auditor’s report, it was not error to sustain it. Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

155 S.E. 27, 171 Ga. 212, 1930 Ga. LEXIS 312, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/persons-v-persons-ga-1930.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack