Dixon, Mitchell & Co. v. Baxter & Co.

32 S.E. 24, 106 Ga. 180, 1898 Ga. LEXIS 48
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedDecember 14, 1898
StatusPublished
Cited by19 cases

This text of 32 S.E. 24 (Dixon, Mitchell & Co. v. Baxter & 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
Dixon, Mitchell & Co. v. Baxter & Co., 32 S.E. 24, 106 Ga. 180, 1898 Ga. LEXIS 48 (Ga. 1898).

Opinion

Lumpkin, P. J.

“A judgment that is void may be attacked in any court, and by anybody. In all other cases, judgments can not be impeached collaterally, but must be set aside by the court rendering them.” Civil Code, § 5373. “The judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction can not be collaterally attacked in any other court for irregularity, but shall be taken and held as a valid judgment until it is reversed or set aside.’* Tbid. § 5368. The law laid down in these two sections of our code is controlling in the present case.

Dixon, Mitchell & Co. filed in the superior court of Echols county an equitable petition against Baxter & Co. et al., seeking to set aside a certain judgment which had been rendered in the superior court of Clinch county, and praying for an injunction. This petition was dismissed on demurrer. Without netting forth in detail its allegations, it is sufficient to say that, the judgment referred to was on its face valid and regular, and that the plaintiffs were not, so long as it remained of force, entitled to the injunction for which they prayed. It is true that the petition contained-allegations which, if proved, might afford ground for setting the judgment aside. Upon this, however, it is not now necessary to pass definitely. The plaintiffs’ case was clearly without merit, because the attack upon the judgment was made in the wrong jurisdiction. It should have been in the superior court of Clinch county, wherein the judgment was rendered. We agree with the learned, experienced, and venerable trial judge, that the court over which he presided had no jurisdiction to inquire into the validity of this judgment with, a view to setting it aside and thus opening the way for granting the extraordinary relief sought.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concurring_

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

Related

DE PADOVA
15 I. & N. Dec. 502 (Board of Immigration Appeals, 1975)
Lorant v. Lorant
318 N.E.2d 830 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1974)
Hill v. Harper
196 S.E.2d 397 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1973)
Weatherly v. Citizens & Southern National Bank
149 S.E.2d 688 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1966)
Hodges v. Cousins
77 S.E.2d 83 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1953)
Hughes v. Cobb
23 S.E.2d 701 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1942)
Owenby v. Stancil
8 S.E.2d 7 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1940)
Payne v. McCrary
1 S.E.2d 742 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1939)
Perry v. Fletcher
167 S.E. 796 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1933)
Hardin v. Dodd
167 S.E. 277 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1932)
Whiteley v. Downs
164 S.E. 318 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1932)
Perry v. Fletcher
162 S.E. 285 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1932)
Johnson v. Peoples Bank
160 S.E. 235 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1931)
Anderson v. Turner
133 S.E. 306 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1926)
Schulze v. Schulze
101 S.E. 183 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1919)
Peterson v. Calhoun
68 S.E. 1022 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1910)
Heath v. Miller
44 S.E. 13 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1903)
Walker v. Equitable Mortgage Co.
40 S.E. 1010 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1902)
Suwannee Turpentine Co. v. Baxter & Co.
35 S.E. 142 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1900)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
32 S.E. 24, 106 Ga. 180, 1898 Ga. LEXIS 48, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dixon-mitchell-co-v-baxter-co-ga-1898.