Miller v. Ray

Supreme Court of Georgia

Miller v. Ray

64 S.E.2d 449, 208 Ga. 27, 1951 Ga. LEXIS 525

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedApril 10, 1951

Docket17427

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 64 S.E.2d 449 (Miller v. Ray) 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

Miller v. Ray, 64 S.E.2d 449, 208 Ga. 27, 1951 Ga. LEXIS 525 (Ga. 1951).

Pincite

Opinion

Head, Justice.

1. Where the equitable relief sought has been eliminated on or before the trial, and the sole question for determination by the jury is one of damages, the Supreme Court is without jurisdiction of the writ of error. Brightwell v. Oglethorpe Telephone Co., 176 Ga. 65 (166 S. E. 646); Henley v. Colonial Stages South, 184 Ga. 445 (191 S. E. 445); Bartlett v. Walker, 189 Ga. 154 (5 S. E. 2d, 373); Gilbert Hotel v. Black, 192 Ga. 641 (16 S. E. 2d, 435); Swinson v. Jones, 198 Ga. 327 (31 S. E. 2d, 592).

2. When title to land is not directly, but only incidentally involved, the Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction of the writ of error under the provisions of the Constitution, art. 6, sec. 2, par. 4 (Code, Ann., § 2-3704), conferring upon the Supreme Court jurisdiction “in all cases respecting title to land.” Colley v. Atlanta & West Point Railroad Co., 156 Ga. 43 (118 S. E. 712); Radcliffe v. Jones, 174 Ga. 324 (162 S. E. 679); Lewis v. Fry, 194 Ga. 842 (22 S. E. 2d, 817).

3. Under the foregoing rules the writ of error is

Transferred to the Court of Appeals.

All the Justices concur. *28 L. J. Courson and Gibson & Maddox, for plaintiff. Fred Belcher, Ben T. Willoughby, and McCall & Griffis, for defendant.

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

Head, Justice.

1. Where the equitable relief sought has been eliminated on or before the trial, and the sole question for determination by the jury is one of damages, the Supreme Court is without jurisdiction of the writ of error. Brightwell v. Oglethorpe Telephone Co., 176 Ga. 65 (166 S. E. 646); Henley v. Colonial Stages South, 184 Ga. 445 (191 S. E. 445); Bartlett v. Walker, 189 Ga. 154 (5 S. E. 2d, 373); Gilbert Hotel v. Black, 192 Ga. 641 (16 S. E. 2d, 435); Swinson v. Jones, 198 Ga. 327 (31 S. E. 2d, 592).

2. When title to land is not directly, but only incidentally involved, the Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction of the writ of error under the provisions of the Constitution, art. 6, sec. 2, par. 4 (Code, Ann., § 2-3704), conferring upon the Supreme Court jurisdiction “in all cases respecting title to land.” Colley v. Atlanta & West Point Railroad Co., 156 Ga. 43 (118 S. E. 712); Radcliffe v. Jones, 174 Ga. 324 (162 S. E. 679); Lewis v. Fry, 194 Ga. 842 (22 S. E. 2d, 817).

3. Under the foregoing rules the writ of error is

Transferred to the Court of Appeals.

All the Justices concur. *28 L. J. Courson and Gibson & Maddox, for plaintiff. Fred Belcher, Ben T. Willoughby, and McCall & Griffis, for defendant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

64 S.E.2d 449, 208 Ga. 27, 1951 Ga. LEXIS 525, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miller-v-ray-ga-1951.

Opinion

3. Under the foregoing rules the writ of error is

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack