Darsey v. Cotton States Fertilizer Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Darsey v. Cotton States Fertilizer Co.

167 S.E. 924, 46 Ga. App. 485, 1933 Ga. App. LEXIS 113

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 23, 1933

Docket22293

StatusPublished

This text of 167 S.E. 924 (Darsey v. Cotton States Fertilizer 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

Darsey v. Cotton States Fertilizer Co., 167 S.E. 924, 46 Ga. App. 485, 1933 Ga. App. LEXIS 113 (Ga. Ct. App. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

Stephens, J.

1. A petition in a suit in trover brought to and returnable to a monthly session of the city court of Dublin, 'which alleges the value of the property sued for as being $90, and that “the yearly value of said property is $10 per annum,” but which alleges no claim for hire for any period of time, and the period of time for which hire could be claimed does not appear, although it may allege a suit in the amount of $100, it does not affirmatively allege a suit in an amount exceeding $100; and where the city court of Dublin, at its monthly sessions, has no jurisdiction of eases which are returnable thereto and which involve more than $100 (Ga. L. 1900, p. 117, § 17), the petition is not subject to demurrer on the ground that “the petition shows on its face that the amount involved exceeds the jurisdiction of the monthly term of the city court of Dublin.”

2. Whether the averments in the affidavit to obtain bail could be considered in determining whether the amount sued for was within the jurisdiction of the court, the demurrer was based solely on the ground that it appeared from the face of the petition that the amount sued for was beyond the jurisdiction of the court. It would seem, however, that the jurisdiction of the court, in a suit in trover, is determinable by the allegations in the petition and not by any averment in the affidavit for bail. Singer Manufacturing Co. v. Martin, 75 Ga. 570.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Sutton, J., concur.

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

Stephens, J.

1. A petition in a suit in trover brought to and returnable to a monthly session of the city court of Dublin, 'which alleges the value of the property sued for as being $90, and that “the yearly value of said property is $10 per annum,” but which alleges no claim for hire for any period of time, and the period of time for which hire could be claimed does not appear, although it may allege a suit in the amount of $100, it does not affirmatively allege a suit in an amount exceeding $100; and where the city court of Dublin, at its monthly sessions, has no jurisdiction of eases which are returnable thereto and which involve more than $100 (Ga. L. 1900, p. 117, § 17), the petition is not subject to demurrer on the ground that “the petition shows on its face that the amount involved exceeds the jurisdiction of the monthly term of the city court of Dublin.”

2. Whether the averments in the affidavit to obtain bail could be considered in determining whether the amount sued for was within the jurisdiction of the court, the demurrer was based solely on the ground that it appeared from the face of the petition that the amount sued for was beyond the jurisdiction of the court. It would seem, however, that the jurisdiction of the court, in a suit in trover, is determinable by the allegations in the petition and not by any averment in the affidavit for bail. Singer Manufacturing Co. v. Martin, 75 Ga. 570.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Sutton, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

167 S.E. 924, 46 Ga. App. 485, 1933 Ga. App. LEXIS 113, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/darsey-v-cotton-states-fertilizer-co-gactapp-1933.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack