Case ID: ga_47/html/0586-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Warner, Chief Justice.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

William Sirrine, administrator, et al., plaintiffs in error, vs. The Southwestern Railroad Company, defendant in error.
    (Montgomery, Judge, was providentially prevented from presiding in this ease.)
    Under the provisions of the Act of 1871, the Superior Court is authorized to appoint an auditor to investigate the matters of account, if in its discretion the case shall require it. (R.)
    Appointment of auditor. Before Judge Clark. Sumter Superior Court. November Term, 1872.
    The Southwestern Railroad Company brought complaint against William Sirrine, as administrator upon the estate of Hawkins H. Nunn, deceased, as principal, and William W. Barlow and Wade J. Barlow, securities, on a bond made by said Nunn, on June 14th, 1857, in the sum of $10,000 00, conditioned for the faithful discharge of his duties, as agent of said railroad company at Americus, and for a full account of all property, moneys, etc., received by him as such agent. Pending the litigation the plaintiff petitioned for the appointment of an auditor, upon the ground that the suit involved the account of Nunn, as agent as aforesaid, for a number of years, of a large and complicated nature.
    The Court appointed Philip Cook auditor, in accordance with the prayer of the petition. Whereupon defendants excepted and assign said ruling as error.
    C. T. Goode ; W. A. Hawkins, for plaintiffs in error.
    R. F. Lyon ; N. A. Smith, for defendant.
   Warner, Chief Justice.

The error complained of in this case is the appointment of an auditor to audit the accounts of the defendant’s intestate, who, and his securities, were sued on the bond of the intestate as the agent of the plaintiff, alleging as a breach thereof, that the defepdant’s intestate had received divers sums of money as such agent, which he had not accounted for and paid over to the plaintiff. Under the provisions of the Act of 1871, the Court is authorized to appoint an auditor to investigate matters of account, if in its discretion the case shall require it.

Let the judgment of the Court below be affirmed.