Legal Opinion

Stovall v. Mendenhall

Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided September 9, 1941No. 13850PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

1. Where a motion to recommit to the auditor is sustained, the order recommitting must be construed in connection with the motion as well as other relevant circumstances in the case; and although the order directs that portions of the brief of evidence may be used if agreed to by counsel, it will not be construed to direct a de novo hearing, where the motion makes no complaint on the sufficiency of the evidence, but relates solely to criticisms of the form and sufficiency of the findings of the auditor, and all the parties agree to the order of recommitment, and the evidence comprises more…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Callan Court Co. v. Citizens & Southern National BankSupreme Court of Georgia · 1937
  2. Cowart v. SingletarySupreme Court of Georgia · 1913
  3. Mendenhall v. StovallSupreme Court of Georgia · 1940
  4. Greer v. AndrewSupreme Court of Georgia · 1912
  5. Henderson v. LottSupreme Court of Georgia · 1930

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Georgia Veneer & Package Co. v. Florida National BankSupreme Court of Georgia · 1944
  2. Ewing v. First Nat. Bank of AtlantaSupreme Court of Georgia · 1953
  3. MCG Development Corp. v. Bick Realty Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1976
  4. Mendenhall v. StovallSupreme Court of Georgia · 1943
  5. Smalls v. PittmanCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1976

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API