Case ID: ga_162/html/0625-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

DARIEN BANK v. CLIFTON.
    1. “In equity eases submitted to an auditor to whose report exceptions of law and fact are filed, the trial judge can, in his discretion, decline to submit exceptions of fact to a jury, unless he approves them. He may disapprove the exceptions, and thereupon enter a decree. Stone v. Risner, 111 Ga. 809 (35 S. E. 648) ; Hogan v. Walsh, 122 Ga. 283 (50 S. E. 84); Austin v. Southern Home Association, 122 Ga. 440 (7), 448 (50 S. E. 382).” Mathewson v. Reed, 149 Ga. 217 (2), 218 (99 S. E. 854) ; Wiley v. &%ty of Sparta, 154 Ga. 1 (4), 23 (114 S. E. 45, 25 A. L. R. 1342).
    2. “Where, in an equity case referred to an auditor, the evidence supported his findings, the trial judge did not err in overruling the exceptions of fact thereto.” Rodgers v. Stern, 112 Ga. 624 (37 S. E. 877); Cranston v. Bank of the State of Georgia, 112 Ga. 617 (37 S. E. 875); Fowler v. Davis, 120 Ga. 442 (2) 443 (47 S. E. 951).
    3. “While several exceptions of law and fact were filed to the auditor’s report, substantially they hinged upon the general question whether under the law and the evidence the report was sustainable. Upon a careful review of the evidence and consideration of the law, it is held that the findings of the auditor were all supported, and there was no error committed in overruling the exceptions of law and fact, nor in entering the decree complained of.” Worth Atlanta Land Co. v. Portness, 138 Ga. 135 (74 S. E. 1000).
    4. The court did not err in appointing an auditor. In equity cases, the judge may upon his own motion, when in his judgment the facts and the circumstances of any such case require it, refer the same to an auditor. Civil Code (1910), § 5127. Cherokee Ochre Co. v. Ga. Peruvian Ochre Co., ante, 620 (134 S. E. 616).
    Equity, 21 C. J. p. 605, n. 5.
    Reference, 34 Cye. p. 794, n. 54, 55; p. 863, n. 10; p. 866, n. 35.
    No. 5003.
    September 11, 1926.
    Rehearing denied September 29, 1926.
    Equitable petition. Before Judge Sheppard. McIntosh superior court. May 25, 1925.
    
      Tyson & Tyson, for plaintiff in error.
    
      H. Wiley Johnson and Mclntire, Walsh & Bernstein, contra.
   Per Curiam.

Mrs. W. A. Clifton filed suit against the Darien Bank, to recover a sum of money alleged to have been deposited by her in said bank and subsequently paid out without her authority. The case was previously before this court on exceptions to a judgment overruling general and special demurrers. The judgment was affirmed, and a complete statement of the allegations of the petition was made. Darien Bank v. Clifton, 156 Ga. 65 (118 S. E. 641). Thereafter the case came on for trial, and was referred to an auditor, who reported a finding in favor of the plaintiff. Defendant filed exceptions to the appointment of an auditor, and also exceptions of law and fact to the auditor’s report, and a motion to recommit. One ground of the motion to recommit was sustained; all others were overruled. The defendant excepted pendente lite to the refusal to recommit the ease on all of the grounds of the motion. The auditor made a subsequent report, and the defendant filed additional exceptions of law and fact and a motion to dismiss the case. The court overruled the exceptions of law, disapproved the exceptions of fact, and rendered a decision in favor of the plaintiff in accord with the report of the auditor. To this judgment the defendant excepted.

The answer of the defendant was a denial of the contention of the plaintiff that the funds deposited in the bank in her name were misapplied or paid out without authority; and it was specifically alleged that a named individual, holding the position of cashier of the bank, was authorized to act as the friend and business adviser of the plaintiff, as an authorized agent in the depositing of funds, the withdrawal of the same, the purchasing and selling of stock and securities — that is, in making investments for the benefit of the plaintiff. Thus, the sole issue was whether or not the individual holding the position of cashier was authorized to act for the plaintiff as stated, or whether the bank paid out funds held to the credit of the plaintiff by direction of said cashier, and without authority of the plaintiff. The principles of law applicable to the plaintiff’s contention under her petition are stated in the previous decision of this court, cited above. The motion to recommit and the exceptions of law and fact all depend at last upon the above-stated controlling issue. On that issue the evidence was in conflict. Our rulings appear in the syllabus.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except Russell, C. J., and Hines, J., who dissent.