TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Hart v. Manson

Hart v. Manson, ordinary, for use

Hart v. Manson, 47 S.E. 345 (Ga. 1904)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Georgia · State Highest Courts
Decided
March 30, 1904
Judges
Candler
Citations
47 S.E. 345119 Ga. 8651904 Ga. LEXIS 383
Summary
Exceptions to auditor’s report. Before Judge Reagan. Clayton superior court. April 13, 1903.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Candler

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Candler, J.

1. The petition as amended was good as against any 'of the grounds of the demurrer filed to it; and the court did not err in overruling the exceptions to the report of the auditor so holding.

2. There was no error in admitting the evidence which was the subject-matter of the second exception of law to the auditor’s report. In the light of all the evidence, the relation of the attorney whose conduct was in question to the entiré transaction was such as to render admissible in evidence all that he said and did in regard thereto.

3. A judgment which is void for any cause is a mere nullity, and may be so held in any court when it becomes material to the interests of the parties to consider it. Civil Code, § 5369.

4. While the judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction is conclusive between parties and privies as to the issue which it decides, it is not so as to third persons. There was ample evidence to warrant the auditor in finding in favor of the charge of fraud and collusion between the parties to the judgment attacked. *

5. The exceptions to the auditor’s report, both of law and fact, were submitted to the judge to be passed on in vacation without the aid of a jury. While some of these exceptions are called by counsel exceptions of fact, and others exceptions of law, in reality all of them, except those which have been passed on in the preceding notes, involve findings of fact. The trial judge has patiently gone through a great mass of evidence, which has been, in the main, reduced to narrative form, but to brief which apparently no effort has been made ; and he has reached conclusions in which we, after like laborious efforts, find no error of which the plaintiffs in error can justly complain.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1928: 11936: 11942: 11948: 11950: 11955: 11964: 11976: 11985: 119282026peak 1928 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Adams v. Payne135 S.E.2d 423 (Ga. 1964)
  2. McDonald v. Wimpy50 S.E.2d 347 (Ga. 1948)
  3. Norris v. Atlanta & West Point Railroad330 S.E.2d 151 (Ga. Ct. App. 1985)
  4. Trowbridge v. Dominy88 S.E.2d 161 (Ga. Ct. App. 1955)
  5. Alcovy Realty Company v. Stone Mountain Abstract Company224 S.E.2d 519 (Ga. Ct. App. 1976)
  6. Hamilton v. First National Bank188 S.E. 840 (Ga. Ct. App. 1936)

Most recent

  1. Norris v. Atlanta & West Point Railroad330 S.E.2d 151 (Ga. Ct. App. 1985)
  2. Alcovy Realty Company v. Stone Mountain Abstract Company224 S.E.2d 519 (Ga. Ct. App. 1976)
  3. Adams v. Payne135 S.E.2d 423 (Ga. 1964)
  4. Trowbridge v. Dominy88 S.E.2d 161 (Ga. Ct. App. 1955)
  5. Jue v. JOE, Alias JONES60 S.E.2d 442 (Ga. 1950)
  6. McDonald v. Wimpy50 S.E.2d 347 (Ga. 1948)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list