Amerson v. Pope

Supreme Court of Georgia

Amerson v. Pope

141 S.E.2d 452, 220 Ga. 670, 1965 Ga. LEXIS 600

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 18, 1965

Docket22828

StatusPublished

This text of 141 S.E.2d 452 (Amerson v. Pope) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Amerson v. Pope, 141 S.E.2d 452, 220 Ga. 670, 1965 Ga. LEXIS 600 (Ga. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

Duckworth, Chief Justice.

The contention of the defendant in error that certiorari is the proper remedy and mandamus will not lie to require the ordinary to hear the election contest is without merit since under Harris v. Glenn, 141 Ga. 687 (81 SE 1103), Simpson v. Rimes, 141 Ga. 822 (82 SE 291); Walton v. Booth, 151 Ga. 452 (107 SE 63), and Owen v. Butler, 188 Ga. 645 (4 SE2d 635), it is held that the ordinary is not acting in a judicial capacity in an election contest, his actions being purely statutory and limited in scope. However, the contention that the party contestee would be adversely affected by any judgment for the plaintiff in the mandamus action and is, therefore, an essential and necessary party, is good, and for this reason, the mandamus action is fatally defective in failing to name said contestee as a party defendant and was properly dismissed. Smith v. Hodgson, 129 Ga. 494 (59 SE 272); Walton v. Booth, 151 Ga. 452, supra; McGinty v. Gormley, 181 Ga. 644, 650 (183 SE 804); Owen v. Butler, 188 Ga. 645, supra.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Duckworth, Chief Justice.

The contention of the defendant in error that certiorari is the proper remedy and mandamus will not lie to require the ordinary to hear the election contest is without merit since under Harris v. Glenn, 141 Ga. 687 (81 SE 1103), Simpson v. Rimes, 141 Ga. 822 (82 SE 291); Walton v. Booth, 151 Ga. 452 (107 SE 63), and Owen v. Butler, 188 Ga. 645 (4 SE2d 635), it is held that the ordinary is not acting in a judicial capacity in an election contest, his actions being purely statutory and limited in scope. However, the contention that the party contestee would be adversely affected by any judgment for the plaintiff in the mandamus action and is, therefore, an essential and necessary party, is good, and for this reason, the mandamus action is fatally defective in failing to name said contestee as a party defendant and was properly dismissed. Smith v. Hodgson, 129 Ga. 494 (59 SE 272); Walton v. Booth, 151 Ga. 452, supra; McGinty v. Gormley, 181 Ga. 644, 650 (183 SE 804); Owen v. Butler, 188 Ga. 645, supra.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

141 S.E.2d 452, 220 Ga. 670, 1965 Ga. LEXIS 600, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/amerson-v-pope-ga-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack