Jackson v. Jackson

Supreme Court of Georgia

Jackson v. Jackson

172 S.E. 459, 178 Ga. 203, 1934 Ga. LEXIS 10

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 11, 1934

DocketNo. 9830

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 172 S.E. 459 (Jackson v. Jackson) 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

Jackson v. Jackson, 172 S.E. 459, 178 Ga. 203, 1934 Ga. LEXIS 10 (Ga. 1934).

Pincite

Opinion

Bell, J.

Unless a “judgment for a sum certain” has been rendered in the trial court, the Supreme Court has no authority under the Civil Code, § 6213, to award damages in favor of the defendant in error against the plaintiff in error, although it might be the opinion of the court that “the cause was taken up for delay only.” It appearing from a statement of counsel for the plaintiff in error and a response thereto by counsel for the defendant in error that the present case has become moot, and the judgment complained of not being for a sum certain, but being a judgment refusing an interlocutory injunction, the motion to award damages for delay should be denied, and the writ of error be dismissed. Collins Park &c. R. Co. v. Short Electric Ry. Co., 95 Ga. 570 (20 S. E. 495) ; Pittsburg-Bartow Mining Co. v. Washington Trust Co., 137 Ga. 232 (2) (73 S. E. 367) ; Furr v. Bank of Fairmount, 139 Ga. 815 (5) (78 S. E. 181); Berryman v. Royston Bank, 145 Ga. 135 (88 S. E. 682).

Writ of error dismissed.

All the Justices concur, except Hill, J., absent because of illness.

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

Bell, J.

Unless a “judgment for a sum certain” has been rendered in the trial court, the Supreme Court has no authority under the Civil Code, § 6213, to award damages in favor of the defendant in error against the plaintiff in error, although it might be the opinion of the court that “the cause was taken up for delay only.” It appearing from a statement of counsel for the plaintiff in error and a response thereto by counsel for the defendant in error that the present case has become moot, and the judgment complained of not being for a sum certain, but being a judgment refusing an interlocutory injunction, the motion to award damages for delay should be denied, and the writ of error be dismissed. Collins Park &c. R. Co. v. Short Electric Ry. Co., 95 Ga. 570 (20 S. E. 495) ; Pittsburg-Bartow Mining Co. v. Washington Trust Co., 137 Ga. 232 (2) (73 S. E. 367) ; Furr v. Bank of Fairmount, 139 Ga. 815 (5) (78 S. E. 181); Berryman v. Royston Bank, 145 Ga. 135 (88 S. E. 682).

Writ of error dismissed.

All the Justices concur, except Hill, J., absent because of illness.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

172 S.E. 459, 178 Ga. 203, 1934 Ga. LEXIS 10, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jackson-v-jackson-ga-1934.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack