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 findings 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) (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).

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 (1997).

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).

Although a jury trial was required in a quo warranto proceeding if there were factual questions at issue, O.C.G.A. § 9-6-65, 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).

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).

Cited in Whitehurst v. Jones, 117 Ga. 803, 45 S.E. 49 (1903); Hathcock v. McGouirk, 119 Ga. 973, 47 S.E. 563 (1904); Sweat v. Barnhill, 171 Ga. 294, 155 S.E. 8 (1930); Roan v. Rodgers, 201 Ga. 696, 40 S.E.2d 551 (1946).

Am. Jur. 2d.

- 65 Am. Jur. 2d, Quo Warranto, §§ 127, 128.

C.J.S.

- 74 C.J.S., Quo Warranto, § 80 et seq.