City of Columbus v. Atlanta Cigar Co.

Supreme Court of Georgia

City of Columbus v. Atlanta Cigar Co.

140 S.E.2d 267, 220 Ga. 533, 1965 Ga. LEXIS 555

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 18, 1965

Docket22795

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 140 S.E.2d 267 (City of Columbus v. Atlanta Cigar Co.) 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

City of Columbus v. Atlanta Cigar Co., 140 S.E.2d 267, 220 Ga. 533, 1965 Ga. LEXIS 555 (Ga. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

Head, Presiding Justice.

A prayer for injunctive relief to maintain the status does not convert an action for declaratory relief into an equitable action. Griffin v. Hardware Mutual Ins. Co., 212 Ga. 130 (91 SE2d 10); U.S. Casualty Co. v. Ga. So. & Fla. R. Co., 212 Ga. 569 (94 SE2d 422). Where, as in the present case, there are no allegations in the petition germane to any equitable relief, a prayer for permanent injunction, after a determination of the cause by the court, to restrain the defendant from enforcing the ordinance, is insufficient to convert an action for declaratory relief into an equity case.

Moreover, in the present case no injunctive relief was granted either in the order of the court setting the matter for a hearing or in the judgment declaring the ordinance void and unenforceable, and there is no assignment of error involving the right of the petitioners to injunctive relief. The question of jurisdiction of this court will be evaluated on the character of the case as it stands before this court, and the relief granted in the trial court. Brightwell v. Oglethorpe Telephone Co., 176 Ga. 65 (166 SE 646); Holloway v. Dorsey, 198 Ga. 266 (31 SE2d 349); Swinson v. Jones, 198 Ga. 327 (31 SE2d 592); Overstreet v. Schulman, 203 Ga. 284 (46 SE2d 344); Findley v. City of Vidalia, 204 Ga. 279 (49 SE2d 658); Williams v. Russell, 207 Ga. 220 (60 SE2d 243); Miller v. Ray, 208 Ga. 27 (64 SE2d 449).

The Court of Appeals has jurisdiction to decide constitutional questions that do not involve the construction of the Constitu *535 tion of the United States or of this State, or the constitutionality of a law of the United States or of any law of this State. Thompson v. City of Atlanta, 176 Ga. 489 (168 SE 312); Stafford v. City of Valdosta, 178 Ga. 224 (172 SE 461); Maner v. Dykes, 183 Ga. 118 (187 SE 699); Dade County v. State, 203 Ga. 280 (46 SE2d 345); Shipman v. Johnson, 210 Ga. 174 (78 SE2d 515); Beard v. City of Atlanta, 211 Ga. 25 (83 SE2d 594).

Under the Constitution, Art. VI, Sec. II, Par. IV (Code Ann. § 2-3704) jurisdiction of the writ of error in the present case is vested in the Court of Appeals and not the Supreme Court of Georgia.

Remanded to the Court of Appeals.

All the Justices concur.

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

Head, Presiding Justice.

A prayer for injunctive relief to maintain the status does not convert an action for declaratory relief into an equitable action. Griffin v. Hardware Mutual Ins. Co., 212 Ga. 130 (91 SE2d 10); U.S. Casualty Co. v. Ga. So. & Fla. R. Co., 212 Ga. 569 (94 SE2d 422). Where, as in the present case, there are no allegations in the petition germane to any equitable relief, a prayer for permanent injunction, after a determination of the cause by the court, to restrain the defendant from enforcing the ordinance, is insufficient to convert an action for declaratory relief into an equity case.

Moreover, in the present case no injunctive relief was granted either in the order of the court setting the matter for a hearing or in the judgment declaring the ordinance void and unenforceable, and there is no assignment of error involving the right of the petitioners to injunctive relief. The question of jurisdiction of this court will be evaluated on the character of the case as it stands before this court, and the relief granted in the trial court. Brightwell v. Oglethorpe Telephone Co., 176 Ga. 65 (166 SE 646); Holloway v. Dorsey, 198 Ga. 266 (31 SE2d 349); Swinson v. Jones, 198 Ga. 327 (31 SE2d 592); Overstreet v. Schulman, 203 Ga. 284 (46 SE2d 344); Findley v. City of Vidalia, 204 Ga. 279 (49 SE2d 658); Williams v. Russell, 207 Ga. 220 (60 SE2d 243); Miller v. Ray, 208 Ga. 27 (64 SE2d 449).

The Court of Appeals has jurisdiction to decide constitutional questions that do not involve the construction of the Constitu *535 tion of the United States or of this State, or the constitutionality of a law of the United States or of any law of this State. Thompson v. City of Atlanta, 176 Ga. 489 (168 SE 312); Stafford v. City of Valdosta, 178 Ga. 224 (172 SE 461); Maner v. Dykes, 183 Ga. 118 (187 SE 699); Dade County v. State, 203 Ga. 280 (46 SE2d 345); Shipman v. Johnson, 210 Ga. 174 (78 SE2d 515); Beard v. City of Atlanta, 211 Ga. 25 (83 SE2d 594).

Under the Constitution, Art. VI, Sec. II, Par. IV (Code Ann. § 2-3704) jurisdiction of the writ of error in the present case is vested in the Court of Appeals and not the Supreme Court of Georgia.

Remanded to the Court of Appeals.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

140 S.E.2d 267, 220 Ga. 533, 1965 Ga. LEXIS 555, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-columbus-v-atlanta-cigar-co-ga-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack