Home/Supreme Court of Georgia/Whitfield-Baker Co. v. Anderson

Whitfield-Baker Co. v. Anderson

93 S.E. 406, 147 Ga. 242, 1917 Ga. LEXIS 142
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedAugust 31, 1917
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 93 S.E. 406 (Whitfield-Baker Co. v. Anderson) 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
Whitfield-Baker Co. v. Anderson, 93 S.E. 406, 147 Ga. 242, 1917 Ga. LEXIS 142 (Ga. 1917).

Opinion

Fish, C. J.

When exceptions of fact to the report of an auditor are submitted. to a jury, they must return a verdict on each exception seriatim. Civil Code, § 5146; Harris v. Lumpkin, 136 Ga. 47 (6), 52 (70 S. E. 869).

(а) In such a case a verdict as follows: “We the jury find in favor of the auditor’s report and against the exceptions,” was contrary to law and must be set aside. Kennedy v. Brand, 95 Ga. 539 (20 S. E. 631).

(б) Eailure of a party to object to the reception of such a verdict will not preclude him from subsequently attacking it.

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Related

Rucker v. Camden Telephone & Telegraph Co.
353 S.E.2d 50 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1987)
Fischer v. Howard
271 P.2d 1059 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1954)
Holton v. Lankford
6 S.E.2d 304 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1939)
Cherokee Ochre Co. v. Georgia Peruvian Ochre Co.
134 S.E. 616 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1926)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
93 S.E. 406, 147 Ga. 242, 1917 Ga. LEXIS 142, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/whitfield-baker-co-v-anderson-ga-1917.