Whitfield-Baker Co. v. Anderson

93 S.E. 406, 147 Ga. 242, 1917 Ga. LEXIS 142
Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided August 31, 1917·Published·Cited by 5 cases

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

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

93 S.E. 406 (Whitfield-Baker Co. v. Anderson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

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)