Winkles v. Simpson Grocery Co.

Supreme Court of Georgia

Winkles v. Simpson Grocery Co.

63 S.E. 627, 132 Ga. 32, 1909 Ga. LEXIS 29

Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided February 11, 1909·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Holden, J.

The neglect of a party excepting to an auditor’s report on matters of fact, or on matters of law dependent for their decision upon the evidence, to set forth, in connection with each exception of law or of fact, the evidence necessary to he considered in passing thereon, or to point out the same hy appropriate reference, or to attach as exhibits; to his exceptions those portions of the evidence relied on to support the exceptions, is a sufficient reason, in an equity ease, for refusing to approve the exceptions of fact and for overruling the exceptions of law. Orr v. Cooledge, 125 Ga. 496 (54 S. E. 618).

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Holden, J.

The neglect of a party excepting to an auditor’s report on matters of fact, or on matters of law dependent for their decision upon the evidence, to set forth, in connection with each exception of law or of fact, the evidence necessary to he considered in passing thereon, or to point out the same hy appropriate reference, or to attach as exhibits; to his exceptions those portions of the evidence relied on to support the exceptions, is a sufficient reason, in an equity ease, for refusing to approve the exceptions of fact and for overruling the exceptions of law. Orr v. Cooledge, 125 Ga. 496 (54 S. E. 618).

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

Winkles v. Simpson Grocery Co., 63 S.E. 627, 132 Ga. 32, 1909 Ga. LEXIS 29 (Ga. 1909).

Pincite

63 S.E. 627 (Winkles v. Simpson Grocery Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related