O.C.G.A.
Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.
In all cases the jury shall find for or against each exception submitted, seriatim.
History
Ga. L. 1894, p. 123, § 20; Civil Code
1895, § 4600; Civil Code 1910, § 5146; Code 1933, § 10-406.
Annotations
JUDICIAL DECISIONS Only function of jury in trial of exceptions of fact to auditor’s report is to pass upon issues of fact raised by exceptions. Holton v. Lankford, 189 Ga. 506, 6 S.E.2d 304, 1939 Ga. LEXIS 729 (1939). Each exception seriatim. - Where the jury fails to find according to this section, the verdict will be set aside. Harris v. Lumpkin, 136 Ga. 47, 70 S.E. 869, 1911 Ga. LEXIS 409 (1911) (see O.C.G.A. § 9-7-20).
Court is not required to pass seriatim on each exception where reference is made to it without the intervention of a jury. Murray v. Hawkins, 144 Ga. 613, 67 S.E. 1068 (1916). Failure of party to object to reception of verdict will not preclude the party from subsequently attacking it. Whitfield-Baker Co. v. Anderson, 147 Ga. 242, 93 S.E. 406, 1917 Ga. LEXIS 142 (1917).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
3
cases, 1987–2012 · leading case:
Atwood v. Sipple, 357 S.E.2d 273 (Ga. Ct. App. 1987).
Atwood v. Sipple, 357 S.E.2d 273 (Ga. Ct. App. 1987).
· cites it 2× “” OCGA § 9-7-20. The filing of a document which defendant “treated” as his exceptions is not sufficient for these purposes.”
Brittingham v. Dattilio, 731 S.E.2d 784 (Ga. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 2× “At the same time, Dattilio has argued that he was not required to obtain Brittingham’s written consent before filing his counterclaim, or for that matter to have complied with any of the other provisions of OCGA § 19-12-1, as his right to seek a name change for the child arose…”
Cortney Brittingham v. Terry Dattilio (Ga. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 2× “As the same time, Dattilio has argued that he was not required to obtain Brittingham’s written consent before filing his counterclaim, or for that matter to have complied with any of the other provisions of OCGA § 19-12-1, as his right to seek a name change for the child arose…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.