Johnson v. Fulton County

Supreme Court of Georgia

Johnson v. Fulton County

117 S.E.2d 155, 216 Ga. 498, 1960 Ga. LEXIS 514

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedNovember 10, 1960

Docket21048, 21049

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 117 S.E.2d 155 (Johnson v. Fulton County) 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

Johnson v. Fulton County, 117 S.E.2d 155, 216 Ga. 498, 1960 Ga. LEXIS 514 (Ga. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

Duckworth, Chief Justice.

1. “A defendant can not decline to litigate in a suit in which he has already been brought into court, by bringing another action, since he is bound to set up all defenses in the first suit, either legal or equitable, whether or not they involve the granting of affirmative relief. Code Ch. 37-9; McCall v. Fry, 120 Ga. 661 (48 S. E. 200); Clay v. Smith, 207 Ga. 610 (63 S. E. 2d 602); Vaughan v. Vaughan, 209 Ga. 730 (75 S. E. 2d 545).” Jeffrey McElreath Mfg. Co. v. Hill, 212 Ga. 183 (91 S. E. 2d 337). To the same effect see Martin v. Fulton County, 213 Ga. 761 (101 S. E. 2d 716).

2. The present petition for a declaratory judgment was filed after the condemnation case had proceeded to an award by the master, payment into court by the condemnor of the amount awarded by the master, judgment decreeing title to the lands described in the petition to be in the condemnor, and appeals by both parties to a jury therein. Every relief sought by this petition pertains to matters involved in the condemnation case, and the court in that case had jurisdiction to adjudicate every question here raised. It follows that the court erred in denying the motion to dismiss the present petition, which was based on the ground that every question raised should be presented in that case. The ruling just made nullifies all rulings complained of in the main bill and all *499 others in the cross-bill, and, for this reason, we need not consider them but will dismiss the main bill, thereby restoring the paxties to all their rights in the condemnation case, unprejudiced by any rulings in this case.

Argued October 10, 1960 Decided November 10, 1960 Rehearing denied November 22, 1960. Houston White, for plaintiff in error. Harold Sheats, Paul H. Anderson, Martin H. Peabody, contra.

Judgment reversed on the cross-bill of exceptions; and the main bill of exceptions is dismissed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Duckworth, Chief Justice.

1. “A defendant can not decline to litigate in a suit in which he has already been brought into court, by bringing another action, since he is bound to set up all defenses in the first suit, either legal or equitable, whether or not they involve the granting of affirmative relief. Code Ch. 37-9; McCall v. Fry, 120 Ga. 661 (48 S. E. 200); Clay v. Smith, 207 Ga. 610 (63 S. E. 2d 602); Vaughan v. Vaughan, 209 Ga. 730 (75 S. E. 2d 545).” Jeffrey McElreath Mfg. Co. v. Hill, 212 Ga. 183 (91 S. E. 2d 337). To the same effect see Martin v. Fulton County, 213 Ga. 761 (101 S. E. 2d 716).

2. The present petition for a declaratory judgment was filed after the condemnation case had proceeded to an award by the master, payment into court by the condemnor of the amount awarded by the master, judgment decreeing title to the lands described in the petition to be in the condemnor, and appeals by both parties to a jury therein. Every relief sought by this petition pertains to matters involved in the condemnation case, and the court in that case had jurisdiction to adjudicate every question here raised. It follows that the court erred in denying the motion to dismiss the present petition, which was based on the ground that every question raised should be presented in that case. The ruling just made nullifies all rulings complained of in the main bill and all *499 others in the cross-bill, and, for this reason, we need not consider them but will dismiss the main bill, thereby restoring the paxties to all their rights in the condemnation case, unprejudiced by any rulings in this case.

Argued October 10, 1960 Decided November 10, 1960 Rehearing denied November 22, 1960. Houston White, for plaintiff in error. Harold Sheats, Paul H. Anderson, Martin H. Peabody, contra.

Judgment reversed on the cross-bill of exceptions; and the main bill of exceptions is dismissed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

117 S.E.2d 155, 216 Ga. 498, 1960 Ga. LEXIS 514, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-fulton-county-ga-1960.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack