Torras v. Raeburn
| Decision Date | 24 July 1899 |
| Parties | TORRAS et al. v. RAEBURN et al. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
TORRAS et al.
v.
RAEBURN et al.
Supreme Court of Georgia.
July 24, 1899.
APPEAL—REVIEW—RECORD—CORPORATIONS — UNPAID SUBSCRIPTIONS — ENFORCEMENT — EVIDENCE—EQUITY — REFERENCE — PROCEDURE—COSTS.
1. Assignments of error in a bill of exceptions upon the overruling of exceptions to an auditor's report which complain of rulings made by the auditor in admitting and rejecting evidence will not be considered by this court when the evidence admitted or rejected is not set forth in the exceptions filed to the auditor's report.
2. In a suit brought by a creditor of a corporation against persons alleged to be stockholders in such corporation to recover unpaid subscriptions for stock, such persons, if shown to be subscribers for stock, will not be allowed in such a suit to call in question the corporate existence of the alleged corporation, nor to show any irregularities in its creation or organization, provided the contract sued on is within the powers apparently possessed by the alleged corporation.
3. The execution of the instrument sued on need not be proved unless the same is denied on oath.
4. When, in an equity case, it appears that there was sufficient evidence before the auditor to sustain his findings on the facts, and the judge has either disapproved all the exceptions of fact, or, sitting as judge and jury by consent, has sustained the auditor on all such findings, this court will not reverse his judgment solely for the reason that there was evidence from which the auditor might have reached a different conclusion.
5. An action brought by the "managing owners" of a vessel described in a charter party cannot be defeated by showing that the vessel re ferred to in the charter was only owned in part by the plaintiffs.
6. In an equity case which has been referred to an auditor, where the exceptions of fact are disapproved, and the exceptions of law overruled, the proper practice is to enter a decree without the intervention of a jury.
7. The discretion of the judge in directing upon whom the costs shall fall in an equity case will not be controlled unless abused, (a) No abuse of discretion appears in the present case.
8. There was some evidence to support all of the auditor's findings of fact, and the same were approved by the trial judge, and, even if any errors of law were committed, they were not of such a nature as to require a reversal of the judgment.
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Error from superior court, Glynn county; J. L. Sweat, Judge.
Action by Raeburn & Verell against the Florida Phosphate Exchange...
To continue reading
Request your trial