Griffin v. Securities Investment Co.

Supreme Court of Georgia

Griffin v. Securities Investment Co.

192 S.E. 909, 184 Ga. 692, 1937 Ga. LEXIS 621

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 14, 1937

DocketNo. 11979

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 192 S.E. 909 (Griffin v. Securities Investment 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

Griffin v. Securities Investment Co., 192 S.E. 909, 184 Ga. 692, 1937 Ga. LEXIS 621 (Ga. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

Russell, Chief Justice.

An execution issued by the State superintendent of banks’ was levied upon certain realty, and a claim interposed. In aid of the claim an equitable amendment wa's filed, in which, however, no affirmative relief was prayed. On the trial the court directed a verdict in favor of the claimants, and thereafter, on motion of the plaintiff in fi. fa., a new trial was granted. The claimant excepted and assigned error on that ruling. After the bill of exceptions was certified, the attorneys for the plaintiff in fi. fa. dismissed the levy, which dismissal was approved by the judge of the superior court. Thereafter the defendant in error (plaintiff in fi. fa.) filed in this court a motion to dismiss the writ' of error, on the ground that the questions therein made were moot. Attached to the motion was a certified copy of the entry of levy, with order of dismissal, approved by the trial judge. The plaintiffs in error, in their response to the motion to dismiss, admit the allegations of fact contained in the motion as to the dismissal of the' levy. Held:

1. “The plaintiff in any action, in any court, may-dismiss his action either in vacation or term time, if he shall not thereby prejudice any right of the defendant.” Code of 1933, § 3-510.

2. “The plaintiff in fi. fa. is the plaintiff in the ordinary claim case.” Aultman v. Aultman, 23 Ga. 211.

3. “The issues involved are moot, because the case is no longer pending in the superior court. Mott v. Hill, 7 Ga. 79; A. & W. P. R. Co. v. Golightly, 148 Ga. 582 (97 S. E. 516); Stark v. Hamilton, 149 Ga. 44 (99 S. E. 40, 5 A. L. R. 1041); Marshall v. Johnson, 149 Ga. 608 (2) (101 S. E. 577); Johnson v. Quigg, 164 Ga. 391 (138 S. E. 774); O’Neal v. Hood Coach Lines, 179 Ga. 72 (175 S. E. 15).” City of Jackson v. Hardy, 180 Ga. 694 (180 S. E. 610).

4. This court will not decide a case solely to determine the matter of costs advanced in this court. Christopher v. Crovatt, 147 Ga. 632 (95 S. E. 233), and cit.; A. & W. P. R. Co. v. Golightly, supra; Deaton v. Day, 148 Ga. 698 (2) (98 S. E. 267), and cit.; City of Jackson v. Hardy, supra.

Writ of error dismissed.

All the Justices concur, except Beeh, P. J., and Bell, J., absent because of illness.

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

Russell, Chief Justice.

An execution issued by the State superintendent of banks’ was levied upon certain realty, and a claim interposed. In aid of the claim an equitable amendment wa's filed, in which, however, no affirmative relief was prayed. On the trial the court directed a verdict in favor of the claimants, and thereafter, on motion of the plaintiff in fi. fa., a new trial was granted. The claimant excepted and assigned error on that ruling. After the bill of exceptions was certified, the attorneys for the plaintiff in fi. fa. dismissed the levy, which dismissal was approved by the judge of the superior court. Thereafter the defendant in error (plaintiff in fi. fa.) filed in this court a motion to dismiss the writ' of error, on the ground that the questions therein made were moot. Attached to the motion was a certified copy of the entry of levy, with order of dismissal, approved by the trial judge. The plaintiffs in error, in their response to the motion to dismiss, admit the allegations of fact contained in the motion as to the dismissal of the' levy. Held:

1. “The plaintiff in any action, in any court, may-dismiss his action either in vacation or term time, if he shall not thereby prejudice any right of the defendant.” Code of 1933, § 3-510.

2. “The plaintiff in fi. fa. is the plaintiff in the ordinary claim case.” Aultman v. Aultman, 23 Ga. 211.

3. “The issues involved are moot, because the case is no longer pending in the superior court. Mott v. Hill, 7 Ga. 79; A. & W. P. R. Co. v. Golightly, 148 Ga. 582 (97 S. E. 516); Stark v. Hamilton, 149 Ga. 44 (99 S. E. 40, 5 A. L. R. 1041); Marshall v. Johnson, 149 Ga. 608 (2) (101 S. E. 577); Johnson v. Quigg, 164 Ga. 391 (138 S. E. 774); O’Neal v. Hood Coach Lines, 179 Ga. 72 (175 S. E. 15).” City of Jackson v. Hardy, 180 Ga. 694 (180 S. E. 610).

4. This court will not decide a case solely to determine the matter of costs advanced in this court. Christopher v. Crovatt, 147 Ga. 632 (95 S. E. 233), and cit.; A. & W. P. R. Co. v. Golightly, supra; Deaton v. Day, 148 Ga. 698 (2) (98 S. E. 267), and cit.; City of Jackson v. Hardy, supra.

Writ of error dismissed.

All the Justices concur, except Beeh, P. J., and Bell, J., absent because of illness.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

192 S.E. 909, 184 Ga. 692, 1937 Ga. LEXIS 621, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/griffin-v-securities-investment-co-ga-1937.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack