Giles v. Spinks

64 Ga. 205
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedSeptember 15, 1879
StatusPublished
Cited by25 cases

This text of 64 Ga. 205 (Giles v. Spinks) 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
Giles v. Spinks, 64 Ga. 205 (Ga. 1879).

Opinion

Jackson, Justice.

The plaintiff sued, on a constable’s bond, the constable and his sureties for damage arising from failure to levy, laying his damage at one hundred dollars in the declaration. The suit was brought in the county court of Houston [207]*207county returnable to its monthly session. The jurisdiction at these sessions of that court is oné'laundred dollars. The case was taken by appeal to the superior court, where verdict was had for more than one hundred dollars, and the judgment was arrested.

1. It is the amount of damages laid in the declaration that fixes the jurisdiction, and not the verdict of the jury. Tyler Cotton Press Company vs. Chevalier, 56 Ga., 494; Lee vs. Nelms, 57 Ib., 256.

2. Therefore the jurisdiction is maintainable; and if the verdict be over the jurisdiction, and more than the plaintiff claims, it may be written down to the sum laid in the declaration. It cannot be for more. Harris vs. Dub, 57 Ga., 77; Ansley vs. Jordan, 61 Ib., 488, 208; 15 Ib., 554; 20 Ib., 91; 45 Ib., 94, and many others.

3. A verdict is certain which can be made certain by what itself contains or by the record. This verdict finds that plaintiff was damaged two certain principal sums on two notes reduced to judgment and interest at a certain per cent, on each. Though the interest be at different rates per centum, the damage found can be ascertained by a simple calculation in multiplication and addition which any school-boy can make. Therefore thé verdict is for a certain sum. All over one hundred dollars' is wrong. Let it be reduced to $100.00 and stand for that sum as damages, with costs of suit; that is, costs in this case on the bond, and not costs in the actions on the notes. Code, §3561 ; 14 Ga., 691; 57 Ib., 304; 19 Ib., 298; 24 Ib., 591. Therefore the judgment on this verdict should not have been arrested.

Judgment reversed, with directions accordingly.

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

Related

Russell v. Flynn
381 S.E.2d 142 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1989)
Jolly v. Jolly
224 S.E.2d 807 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1976)
Jackson v. Houston
37 S.E.2d 399 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1946)
Harrell v. Bowman
27 S.E.2d 50 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1943)
Central Telephone Co. v. Floyd
170 S.E. 305 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1933)
Swain v. Georgia Power & Light Co.
169 S.E. 249 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1933)
Nelson Bros. v. Webb
169 S.E. 111 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1933)
Nottingham v. Nicholson
151 S.E. 533 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1930)
Jones v. Empire Furniture Co.
150 S.E. 563 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1929)
Jordan v. State
137 S.E. 798 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1927)
Smith v. Cooper
131 S.E. 478 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1926)
Browning v. State
120 S.E. 649 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1923)
Avery & Co. v. Middlebrooks
93 S.E. 227 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1917)
Garfield Oil Mills v. Stephens
85 S.E. 983 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1915)
Mize v. Mashburn
69 S.E. 316 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1910)
Seaboard Air-Line Railway v. Bishop
63 S.E. 1103 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1909)
Rexford v. Bleckley
63 S.E. 337 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1908)
Moreno v. Martínez
14 P.R. 371 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1908)
Southern Railway Co. v. Oliver & Morrow
58 S.E. 244 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1907)
Griffith v. Elder
35 S.E. 641 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1900)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
64 Ga. 205, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/giles-v-spinks-ga-1879.