Hartell v. Searcy

32 Ga. 190
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedJanuary 15, 1861
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 32 Ga. 190 (Hartell v. Searcy) 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
Hartell v. Searcy, 32 Ga. 190 (Ga. 1861).

Opinion

[191]*191 By the Court.

Lumpkin, J.,

delivering the opinion.

A party is not entitled to prosecute a suit for the same cause of action in different Courts, or in the same tribunal, at the same time. Where the State and Federal Courts have concurrent'jurisdiction, the rule is, for that Court to have precedence which first obtains jurisdiction. Here the action was brought first in Talbot county, but was dismissed; a bill of exceptions was certified and filed, but before the case could be heard, the plaintiff renewed his action in the Sixth Circuit Court of the United States, for the Southern District of Georgia. The defendant, willing to litigate iu that forum, appeared and defended the case there, and a judgment has again been rendered in his favor. Upon proof of these facts, he moves to dismiss the writ of error pending in this Court; and we think he is entitled to do so. Unless the case is reinstated by the judgment of this Court, the defendant could not plead the judgment in the Circuit Court to the case in Talbot, there being no case pending in that Court. •And we do not think he is entitled to the judgment of this Court upon the case which he brought up, but consider it abandoned by the subsequent proceedings of the Circuit Court. Every party is entitled to his day in Court, but no party is entitled to a clay in two Courts upon the same subject matter. The judgment of either, having competent jurisdiction, should be final and conclusive in the premises.

Judgment: that the writ of error be dismissed.

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

Related

Clark v. Weaver
284 S.E.2d 95 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1981)
Pope v. City of Atlanta
240 S.E.2d 177 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1977)
Garrett v. Panacon Corp.
204 S.E.2d 354 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1974)
Davis v. Ware County Board of Education
178 S.E.2d 857 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1970)
Hood v. Cooledge
147 S.E. 426 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1929)
Atlanta & Florida Railroad v. Blanton
6 S.E. 584 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1888)
Kirtland v. Mayor of Macon
62 Ga. 747 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1879)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
32 Ga. 190, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hartell-v-searcy-ga-1861.