Syfert Injury Law Firm
Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation
Call Now: 904-383-7448Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation
Call Now: 904-383-7448The duties heretofore performed by a master in the superior court shall be performed by an auditor.
(Ga. L. 1894, p. 123, § 3; Ga. L. 1895, p. 47, § 1; Civil Code 1895, § 4581; Civil Code 1910, § 5127; Code 1933, § 10-101.)
- Appointment and powers of special master in superior court for determination of just and adequate compensation in eminent domain proceeding, § 22-2-100 et seq.
- For annual survey of law on trial practice and procedure, see 62 Mercer L. Rev. 339 (2010).
Masters in equity cases, both special and standing, have been abolished since the approval of Ga. L. 1894, p. 123. Sengstacke v. American Missionary Ass'n, 196 Ga. 539, 26 S.E.2d 891 (1943).
- Although the parties were on notice that the trial court was considering the appointment of an auditor, the trial court's failure to provide notice and an opportunity to be heard before appointing a special master violated Ga. Unif. Super. Ct. R. 46(B)(1); the trial court otherwise failed to make findings required by Rule 46. Petrakopoulos v. Vranas, 325 Ga. App. 332, 750 S.E.2d 779 (2013).
- Trial court did not err by issuing an order because the court did not actually name and appoint an auditor and/or special master but, rather, the order simply granted the request for an auditor and directed the parties to submit the names of three possible auditors from whom the trial court could eventually make an appointment; thus, the matters mandated under Ga. Unif. Super. Ct. R. 46 did not have to be followed. Potts v. Rueda, 345 Ga. App. 389, 813 S.E.2d 412 (2018).
- Where the auditor did not submit a final report containing separate findings of fact and conclusions of law for the superior court's review, the judgment of the court was directly appealable. McCaughey v. Murphy, 267 Ga. 64, 473 S.E.2d 762 (1996).
Cited in King v. Bank of Weston, 166 Ga. 463, 143 S.E. 423 (1928); Henderson v. Lott, 170 Ga. 261, 152 S.E. 98 (1930); Hicks v. Atlanta Trust Co., 187 Ga. 314, 200 S.E. 301 (1938); AAA Pest Control, Inc. v. Murray, 207 Ga. App. 631, 428 S.E.2d 657 (1993); Alston & Bird LLP v. Mellon Ventures II, L.P., 307 Ga. App. 640, 706 S.E.2d 652 (2010).
- 27A Am. Jur. 2d, Equity, § 226 et seq.
- Conclusiveness of or weight attached to findings of fact of master in chancery, 33 A.L.R. 745.
Total Results: 5
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2016-11-07
Citation: 300 Ga. 91, 793 S.E.2d 402, 2016 Ga. LEXIS 727
Snippet: 845 (1), n. 2 (681 SE2d 651) (2009)]. See OCGA § 9-7-1 (“[t]he duties heretofore performed by a master
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2010-06-01
Citation: 695 S.E.2d 265, 287 Ga. 235, 2010 Fulton County D. Rep. 1753, 2010 Ga. LEXIS 411
Snippet: fact and law in pretrial discovery under OCGA § 9-7-1 et seq.[1] The Court of Appeals further *266 found
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 1996-09-09
Citation: 475 S.E.2d 890, 267 Ga. 82, 96 Fulton County D. Rep. 3215, 1996 Ga. LEXIS 526
Snippet: trial court referred the case to an auditor, OCGA § 9-7-1 et seq., noting that appellant was not represented
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 1996-07-15
Citation: 473 S.E.2d 762, 267 Ga. 64, 96 Fulton County D. Rep. 2690, 1996 Ga. LEXIS 494
Snippet: ... auditors...." The Auditors Statute, OCGA § 9-7-1 et seq., contemplates that an auditor's report shall
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 1987-03-03
Citation: 256 Ga. 849, 353 S.E.2d 466, 1987 Ga. LEXIS 631
Snippet: Andersen, to be a special auditor, pursuant to OCGA § 9-7-1 et seq., for the purpose of determining the proper