dissenting.
This case illustrates a need for this court to re-examine the basis of its ruling in Leach v. Ga. Power Co., 228 Ga. 16 (4) (183 SE2d 755), which held that a special master is not required to state findings of fact and conclusions of law in his report to the trial court as auditors are required to do under Code Ann. § 10-203.
Leach holds that all nonvalue issues ruled on by the special master can be excepted to and reviewed in the trial court without a jury, whereas the value issues can be appealed to a jury determination in the trial court. Assuming this is a correct interpretation of the law, my concern is addressed to the nature of the review in the trial court on the non value issues.
In Leach, most of the nonvalue issues passed on by the master apparently were pure "questions of law,” as opposed to evidentiary nonvalue issues. Rulings on these present no particular problem for review. Exceptions from these rulings can easily be made and preserved for a meaningful review in the trial court. But what about the nonvalue evidentiary issues passed on by the special master? If the order of the master contains no findings of fact, how can his rulings on these evidentiary issues be excepted to for a meaningful review in the trial court?
Leach cites Wiggins v. City of Macon, 120 Ga. App. 197 (169 SE2d 667), and notes certiorari was denied by this court. One clear inference of Wiggins is that Code Ann. Title 10, relating to auditors, applies to special masters. Id., pp. 199, 200. If so, Code Ann. § 10-203, requiring findings and conclusions on the law and facts by auditors, would be applicable to special masters. However, Leach specifically rejected this view and Leach is being followed in the present case.
I submit that Leach either is wrong or that if special masters are not required to state findings of fact and *287conclusions of law as provided in Code Ann. § 10-203, the provisions of Code Ann. § 81 A-152 (a) requiring findings of fact and conclusions of law, are applicable to special masters.
In the present case, the special master’s report contained no findings of fact. Exceptions were timely filed to it. At least one exception deals with a nonvalue evidentiary issue, to wit: Did the condemnor abuse its broad discretion in selecting the location of its transmission line on the condemnee’s property? Obviously, this issue requires a consideration of evidence. But since the master made no findings of fact, how was his finding on the evidence reviewed in the trial court? The majority opinion handles this issue by ruling that: "[a]t the hearing before the special master, Georgia Power Company presented sufficient evidence of the necessity for the transmission line and of the care exercised by Georgia Power Company in the selection of the property to be taken.” How did the trial court rule in this issue? We do not know because the trial court’s order, affirming the special master, makes no mention of the exceptions taken to the special master’s report. The majority opinion assumes the trial court considered these exceptions because of the routine order entered in the trial court affirming the master.
The absence of findings of fact in the special master’s order and the absence of any reference to the exceptions in the trial court’s order would suggest that the condemnee may not have received a meaningful consideration of the nonvalue evidentiary issues he raised in the case. In all candor, the condemnee probably did receive very careful consideration on each issue he raised in the case, but the record does not show it and it is on the record that our judgments must be made.
In fairness to this condemnee, and to parties in other condemnation cases, I would remand the case to the trial court with direction that it be returned to the special master for findings of fact and conclusions of law on all the nonvalue issues in the case. Unless special masters in condemnation cases make findings of fact and state their conclusions of law, I believe it will continue to be very difficult for trial judges to review exceptions to reports *288and orders of special masters. And, as the Court of Appeals pointed out in Wiggins, "The [Special Master] statute recognizes a necessity of having 'judicial ascertainment and judicial supervision of all questions and proceedings connected with the matter.’ (Emphasis supplied.)” Code Ann. § 36-603 (a).
If this language means what it says, this court ought to require a record that clearly shows the issues in the case were considered and ruled on by the special master and the trial court. For these reasons, I dissent to the majority opinion.
I am authorized to state that Chief Justice Nichols concurs in this dissent.