O.C.G.A.
O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 9-7-6 (2019)

Powers of auditor generally

✓ O.C.G.A. — 2019 edition (Public.Resource.Org Release 73)
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.
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section GA-LEGlegis.ga.gov (official) JustiaJustia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

In all cases, unless modified by the order of appointment, in addition to the matter specially referred, the auditor shall have power to hear motions, allow amendments, and pass upon all questions of law and fact. He shall have power to subpoena and swear witnesses and compel the production of papers.

History

Ga. L. 1894, p. 123, § 3; Civil Code

1895, § 4583; Civil Code 1910, § 5129; Code 1933, § 10-103.

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS First sentence of this section permits auditor to pass on all issues as are made by or grow out of the pleadings. Hearn v. Laird, 103 Ga. 271, 29 S.E. 973, 1898 Ga. LEXIS 108 (1898); Weaver v. Cosby, 109 Ga. 310, 34 S.E. 680, 1899 Ga. LEXIS 643 (1899) (see O.C.G.A. § 9-7-6). Qualifications of auditor. - In the hearing before the auditor, the auditor generally takes the place of the judge, and the position, in equitable proceedings, should be confined to lawyers of ability. Barber v. Southern Serv. Corp., 182 Ga.

124, 185 S.E. 93, 1936 Ga. LEXIS 296 (1936). Judicial immunity of auditor. - Where a partner in an accounting company has clearly been named auditor by the trial court pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 9-7-1 et seq., the partner is accordingly cloaked with judicial immunity. Arthur Andersen & Co. v. Wilson, 256 Ga. 849, 353 S.E.2d 466, 1987 Ga. LEXIS 631 (1987). Use of leading questions lies in auditor’s discretion. Rusk v. Hill, 117 Ga.

722, 45 S.E. 42, 1903 Ga. LEXIS 319 (1903). Auditor may permit amendments to pleadings. Cureton v. Cureton, 120 Ga. 559, 48 S.E. 162, 1904 Ga. LEXIS 640 (1904); First State Bank v. Avera, 123 Ga. 598, 51 S.E. 665, 1905 Ga. LEXIS 553 (1905). Auditor is without jurisdiction to strike amendment to pleadings which was allowed by court before the case was referred to the auditor. Rusk v. Hill, 117 Ga. 722, 45 S.E. 42, 1903 Ga. LEXIS 319 (1903). At conclusion of hearing, amendment cannot be made as matter of right. McCord v. City of Jackson, 135 Ga. 176, 69 S.E. 23, 1910 Ga. LEXIS 468 (1910). Failure of auditor to rule on demurrer (now motion to dismiss) will not

afford ground of complaint to plaintiff who was permitted to introduce evidence in support of the plaintiff’s petition. Wilkes v. Carter, 149 Ga. 240, 99 S.E. 860, 1919 Ga. LEXIS 213 (1919). Granting of motion to adjourn hearing is within auditor’s discretion. Johnson v. Thomas, 144 Ga. 69, 86 S.E. 236, 1915 Ga. LEXIS 53 (1915). Appellate review. - Since the law confers such ample powers upon an auditor, the Supreme Court, in reviewing the proceedings in a case which has been referred to an auditor, then passed upon by the chancellor, may reasonably be inclined, if the chancellor approves the auditor’s report, to treat the conclusion reached in such a case as supported by the judgment of two courts. Barber v. Southern Serv. Corp., 182 Ga. 124, 185 S.E. 93, 1936 Ga. LEXIS 296 (1936).

RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. 27A Am. Jur. 2d, Equity, § 194 et seq. ALR. Power of successor or substituted mas-

ter or referee to render decision or enter judgment on testimony heard by predecessor, 70 A.L.R.3d 1079.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1987–2021 · leading case: Arthur Andersen & Co. v. Wilson, 353 S.E.2d 466 (Ga. 1987).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Arthur Andersen & Co. v. Wilson, 353 S.E.2d 466 (Ga. 1987). · cites it 12× “The question remains whether Andersen’s powers fit within that definition.”
Ruskin v. AAF-McQuay, Inc., 643 S.E.2d 333 (Ga. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “” OCGA § 9-7-6; Franklin v. Franklin, 267 Ga.”
E. I. DuPont De Nemours & Co. v. Waters, 681 S.E.2d 651 (Ga. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 4× “See OCGA § 9-7-6. *846 “Whether an auditor shall be appointed is, as a general rule, in the discretion of the court; and unless there has been an abuse of such discretion, the appointment by the court of an auditor will not be disturbed.”
Petrakopoulos v. Vranas, 750 S.E.2d 779 (Ga. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 2× “” OCGA § 9-7-6. And [u]nder OCGA § 9-7-1, the duties previously performed by a “master” in the superior court are now performed by an “auditor,” although Uniform Superior Court Rule (“USCR”) 46, which was adopted effective June 4, 2009, permits the trial court to appoint a…”
A&M Hospitalities, LLC v. Alimchandani, 828 S.E.2d 615 (Ga. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 2× “" OCGA § 9-7-6. And under OCGA § 9-7-1, the duties previously performed by a "master" in the superior court are now performed by an "auditor," although Uniform Superior Court Rule ("USCR") 46, which was adopted effective June 4, 2009, permits the trial court to appoint a special…”
E. I. Dupont De Nemours & Co. v. Waters, 695 S.E.2d 265 (Ga. 2010). · cites it 2× “See OCGA § 9-7-6. Whether an auditor shall be appointed is, as a general rule, in the discretion of the court; and unless there has been an abuse of such discretion, the appointment by the court of an auditor will not be disturbed.”
Franklin v. Franklin, 475 S.E.2d 890 (Ga. 1996). · cites it 2× “” Upon appointment, the auditor is granted the power not only to hear motions, allow amendments, and subpoena and swear witnesses, but also to “pass upon all questions of law and fact.”
A & M Hospitalities, LLC v. Prenita Alimchandani (Ga. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 2× “” OCGA § 9-7-6. And under OCGA § 9-7-1, the duties previously performed by a “master” in the superior court are now performed by an “auditor,” although Uniform Superior Court Rule (“USCR”) 46, which was adopted effective June 4, 2009, permits the trial court to appoint a special…”
Prenita Alimchandani v. a & M Hospitalities, LLC (Ga. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 2× “o monitor implementation of and compliance with orders of the court or, in appropriate cases, monitoring implementation of settlement agreements; (e) to investigate and report to the court on matters identified by the court; (f) to conduct an accounting as instructed by the…”
George A. Petrakopoulos v. Gus Vranas (Ga. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 2× “” OCGA § 9-7-6. And “[u]nder OCGA § 9-7-1, the duties previously performed by a ‘master’ in the superior court are now performed by an ‘auditor,’ although Uniform Superior Court Rule (“USCR”) 46, which was adopted effective June 4, 2009, permits the trial court to appoint a…”
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.