O.C.G.A. § 9-6-65 (2019)
Jury trial where facts at issue; time of trial; continuances
In cases where the facts alleged are denied by the defendant or defendants on oath, the judge shall forthwith, in the usual manner, draw a jury of 12 to try the issue of fact, and the judge shall have the power to fix a day for trial of the issue of fact with an order that the sheriff shall notify the parties of the time and place of trial. The date fixed for the trial shall not be less than ten nor more than 30 days from the date of the order. The judge shall have the discretion to continue the hearing from day to day, as provided for in other cases.
History
Ga. L. 1868, p. 130, § 2; Code 1873, § 3205; Code 1882, § 3205; Civil Code
1895, § 4880; Civil Code 1910, § 5453; Code 1933, § 64-204.
Annotations
JUDICIAL DECISIONS Judge’s findings of fact may stand where correct upon evidence. - Where an issue of fact was tried before a judge without objection, the judge’s find-
ings being correct upon the evidence tendered, the judgment based thereon will not be reversed though there was no jury as provided in this section. Crawley v.
Knight, 108 Ga. 132, 33 S.E. 948, 1899 Ga. LEXIS 201 (1899) (see O.C.G.A. § 9-6-65). Submission to jury does not deprive judge of power to direct verdict. - In quo warranto proceedings, the fact that the judge submits the case to the jury to pass on questions of fact raised by the pleadings will not deprive the judge of power to direct a verdict that is demanded under the pleadings and evidence. Compton v. Hix, 184 Ga. 749, 193 S.E. 252, 1937 Ga. LEXIS 634 (1937). Jury trial was not required in a proceeding to declare a vacancy in the office of city solicitor where the only issue was whether the solicitor was an elected official. This was a question of law. Hornsby v. Campbell, 267 Ga. 511, 480 S.E.2d 189. In a quo warranto proceeding, because the only real point of contention concerned a question of law, specifically whether the city was empowered to remove a board member, and the answer to that question lied within the board’s enabling legislation and bylaws, the trial court did not err in failing to conduct an evidentiary hearing. City of College Park v. Wyatt, 282 Ga.
479, 651 S.E.2d 686, 2007 Ga. LEXIS 728 (2007). Although a jury trial was required in a quo warranto proceeding if there were factual questions at issue, O.C.G.A. § 96-65, a jury trial was not required when the only issues concerned questions of law, pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 9-6-64(a); because the facts surrounding a city council’s vote and a mayor’s appointment of a city attorney were not in dispute, the writ was properly decided by a superior court judge. Jones v. Boone, 297 Ga. 437, 774 S.E.2d 668, 2015 Ga. LEXIS 494 (2015). Appeal of verdict contrary to evidence. - In a quo warranto case involving issues of fact, where upon the trial there is a verdict disposing of those issues, and the party to whom the finding of the jury is adverse makes a motion for a new trial, one of the grounds being that the verdict is contrary to the evidence, which motion upon hearing is overruled, the losing party may except to the judgment overruling the party’s motion and bring the case to the Supreme Court for review. Henderson v. Young, 179 Ga. 540, 176 S.E. 388, 1934 Ga. LEXIS 331 (1934).
RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. 65 Am. Jur. 2d, Quo Warranto, §§ 105, 108.
C.J.S. 74 C.J.S., Quo Warranto, § 80 et seq.