Constitutionality.

- This statute is not violative of the due process clauses of the state and federal constitutions in that the preliminary examination by the examiner is ex parte and before the parties adversely interested are brought into the proceeding, or in that the preliminary report of the examiner is declared to be prima facie evidence of the contents thereof, such report not being binding upon the court or conclusive upon the parties adversely interested in the proceeding. Crowell v. Akin, 152 Ga. 126, 108 S.E. 791, 19 A.L.R. 51 (1921); Saunders v. Staten, 152 Ga. 142, 108 S.E. 797 (1921) (see O.C.G.A. § 44-2-101).

Purpose of the preliminary report is to furnish to the court and to the parties any information likely to affect the title or the possession, and so that any person interested in or likely to be interested in the result of the suit may be notified. Crowell v. Akin, 152 Ga. 126, 108 S.E. 791, 19 A.L.R. 51 (1921).

Reliance upon preliminary report.

- An applicant seeking to register the applicant's title under The Land Registration Act may rely upon what was shown in the examiner's preliminary report, without introducing in evidence the conveyances specified therein. McCall v. Asbury, 190 Ga. 493, 9 S.E.2d 765 (1940).

Unless the words "the said report shall be prima facie evidence of the contents thereof," are read out of this statute, it must be held that when the report is put in evidence the party offering the report has offered sufficient proof of the deeds therein referred to. McCall v. Asbury, 190 Ga. 493, 9 S.E.2d 765 (1940) (see O.C.G.A. § 44-2-101).

Adoption of report without transcript.

- Examiner's brief of the evidence in a title registration proceeding fully complied with O.C.G.A. § 44-2-103(b), and a trial court did not err in adopting the report without first reviewing a transcript; if a stenographic report did exist, the registrant never made timely request that the report be filed or direct the trial court's attention to evidence appearing in the report. A A OK, Ltd. v. City of Atlanta, 280 Ga. 764, 632 S.E.2d 633 (2006).

Burden of proof of deed shifts when affidavit of forgery filed.

- In order to cast on the applicant for registration the burden of proving the genuineness of a deed shown in the preliminary report of the examiner, an affidavit of forgery must be filed, pursuant to former Code 1933, § 29-415 (see O.C.G.A. § 44-2-23); and written objections, though verified, which aver that certain deeds were forgeries did not amount to an affidavit of forgery. McCall v. Asbury, 190 Ga. 493, 9 S.E.2d 765 (1940).

De novo investigation and report required upon sustaining exceptions to original report.

- On sustaining the exceptions to an examiner's report the case should be referred again to the same or a different examiner for a de novo investigation and report. Such is the procedure adopted by reference in The Land Registration Act; for, under the practice applying generally in cases referred to an auditor, where exceptions of fact are sustained, so as to leave no basis for a judgment or decree, the issues must ordinarily be again referred to an auditor, or submitted to a jury. Holton v. Lankford, 189 Ga. 506, 6 S.E.2d 304 (1939).

Cited in Asbury v. McCall, 192 Ga. 102, 14 S.E.2d 715 (1941).

Am. Jur. 2d.

- 66 Am. Jur. 2d, Registration of Land Titles, §§ 2, 10.

C.J.S.

- 76 C.J.S., Registration of Land Titles, §§ 8, 14, 15.