Special master is officer of court.

- The original arbiter is no longer merely a person especially equipped to determine value; he is a competent attorney under oath especially appointed by the court. He is, accordingly, an arm of the court, and his decision is judicial or at least quasi-judicial. Johnson v. Fulton County, 103 Ga. App. 873, 121 S.E.2d 54 (1961).

A special master is a judicial officer within contemplation of the immunity doctrine. West End Whses., Inc. v. Dunlap, 141 Ga. App. 333, 233 S.E.2d 284 (1977).

Rulings of neither auditor nor special master are immediately final. Wiggins v. City of Macon, 120 Ga. App. 197, 169 S.E.2d 667 (1969); Sweat v. Georgia Power Co., 235 Ga. 281, 219 S.E.2d 384 (1975).

Special master's rulings and findings may be excepted to in trial court and disposed of in like manner before any award, which is the end product of the proceeding, is offered to the court and a judgment of taking is entered up based on the award. Wiggins v. City of Macon, 120 Ga. App. 197, 169 S.E.2d 667 (1969).

This section obviously contemplates the possibility of exceptions and an appeal thereon to the superior court. Sweat v. Georgia Power Co., 235 Ga. 281, 219 S.E.2d 384 (1975).

Challenge to special masters award.

- Trial court properly refused to dismiss a landowner's appeal on grounds that it failed to express dissatisfaction with the compensation awarded by the special master, as it provided the utility with notice that the landowner was objecting to the valuation given on the property; moreover, in light of the interest that the utility acquired in the property, and the purposes for which it intended to use that property, consequential damages potentially represented a significant portion of the compensation the landowner could recover. Ga. Power Co. v. Stowers, 282 Ga. App. 695, 639 S.E.2d 605 (2006).

Special master not obligated to report findings and conclusions.

- Although the relationship and accountability of a special master to the court is that of an auditor, a special master is not obligated by this section to render a report in the manner prescribed in § 9-7-8 containing his findings and conclusions upon the law and the facts. Sweat v. Georgia Power Co., 235 Ga. 281, 219 S.E.2d 384 (1975).

Recommittal of the action to a new special master was proper, where the trial court found that the special master failed to apply the Georgia law relating to condemnation proceedings and found the award of the special master to be "incomplete" based on the failure of the special master to determine the just and adequate compensation of the property or interest taken. McBroom v. Georgia Power Co., 192 Ga. App. 81, 383 S.E.2d 634 (1989).

Cited in Leach v. Georgia Power Co., 228 Ga. 16, 183 S.E.2d 755 (1971); Zuber Lumber Co. v. City of Atlanta, 237 Ga. 358, 227 S.E.2d 362 (1976).

C.J.S.

- 30 C.J.S., Eminent Domain, §§ 293-295.