Brown & Bigelow v. Parian Paint Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Brown & Bigelow v. Parian Paint Co.

62 S.E. 95, 4 Ga. App. 632, 1908 Ga. App. LEXIS 495

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJuly 31, 1908

Docket1165

StatusPublished

This text of 62 S.E. 95 (Brown & Bigelow v. Parian Paint Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Brown & Bigelow v. Parian Paint Co., 62 S.E. 95, 4 Ga. App. 632, 1908 Ga. App. LEXIS 495 (Ga. Ct. App. 1908).

Pincite

Opinion

Powell, J.

A case involving issues of fact, with the amount in controversy exceeding $50, was instituted in a justice’s court. The verdict was in favor of the plaintiff, and the defendant took the case, by certiorari, to the superior court. In that court the original plaintiff moved the court to dismiss the certiorari, on the ground that certiorari does not lie to the verdict of the jury in a justice’s court, in a case involving an issue of fact, where the amount involved exceeds $50. The court overruled the motion, and also ordered a new trial. To both of these rulings exceptions are taken.

This case falls within section 9 of the “rules to determine whether certiorari or appeal is the proper remedy,” formulated and announced by the Supreme Court in Toole v. Edmondson, 104 Ga. 784 (31 S. E. 25). To quote, “After a verdiót has been rendered on appeal in the justice’s court, certiorari is available in all cases without reference to the character of the questions involved.” This is but a paraphrasing of section 4149 of the Civil Code, which provides that “when either party is dissatisfied with [633]*633the verdict of a jury in any appeal case tried in the justice courts, such party may apply for and obtain a writ of certiorari,” etc. The cases cited by the plaintiff in error — Ansley v. Farley, 126 Ga. 425 (55 S. E. 180), Cook v. Exom, 125 Ga. 450 (54 S. E. 147), and Benton v. Hynes, 100 Ga. 95 (26 S. E. 469) — refer exclusively to the rights of the losing party as to the trial before the magistrate or county judge, and not to his right in the event of an adverse verdict in the justice’s court.

To admit that the case involved a dispute of fact is to admit the right of the judge of the superior court to grant one new trial upon certiorari. Bailey v. Hooks, 1 Ga. App. 276 (57 S. E. 924); Fair v. Insurance Co., 2 Ga. App. 376 (58 S. E. 492); Walker v. Hughes, 120 Ga. 1079 (48 S. E. 387). Judgment affirmed.

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

Powell, J.

A case involving issues of fact, with the amount in controversy exceeding $50, was instituted in a justice’s court. The verdict was in favor of the plaintiff, and the defendant took the case, by certiorari, to the superior court. In that court the original plaintiff moved the court to dismiss the certiorari, on the ground that certiorari does not lie to the verdict of the jury in a justice’s court, in a case involving an issue of fact, where the amount involved exceeds $50. The court overruled the motion, and also ordered a new trial. To both of these rulings exceptions are taken.

This case falls within section 9 of the “rules to determine whether certiorari or appeal is the proper remedy,” formulated and announced by the Supreme Court in Toole v. Edmondson, 104 Ga. 784 (31 S. E. 25). To quote, “After a verdiót has been rendered on appeal in the justice’s court, certiorari is available in all cases without reference to the character of the questions involved.” This is but a paraphrasing of section 4149 of the Civil Code, which provides that “when either party is dissatisfied with [633]*633the verdict of a jury in any appeal case tried in the justice courts, such party may apply for and obtain a writ of certiorari,” etc. The cases cited by the plaintiff in error — Ansley v. Farley, 126 Ga. 425 (55 S. E. 180), Cook v. Exom, 125 Ga. 450 (54 S. E. 147), and Benton v. Hynes, 100 Ga. 95 (26 S. E. 469) — refer exclusively to the rights of the losing party as to the trial before the magistrate or county judge, and not to his right in the event of an adverse verdict in the justice’s court.

To admit that the case involved a dispute of fact is to admit the right of the judge of the superior court to grant one new trial upon certiorari. Bailey v. Hooks, 1 Ga. App. 276 (57 S. E. 924); Fair v. Insurance Co., 2 Ga. App. 376 (58 S. E. 492); Walker v. Hughes, 120 Ga. 1079 (48 S. E. 387). Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

62 S.E. 95, 4 Ga. App. 632, 1908 Ga. App. LEXIS 495, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-bigelow-v-parian-paint-co-gactapp-1908.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack