Pittman v. Alexander

91 S.E. 910, 19 Ga. App. 475, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 168
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedMarch 15, 1917
Docket7717
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 91 S.E. 910 (Pittman v. Alexander) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Pittman v. Alexander, 91 S.E. 910, 19 Ga. App. 475, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 168 (Ga. Ct. App. 1917).

Opinion

Jenkins, J.

1. The only issue involved in this case being as to whether the defendant in the municipal court of Atlanta was entitled to a set-off in the suit against him, and the evidence upon this issue being conflicting, but ample to justify the judgment of the trial court disallowing the set-off, the judge of the superior court did not err in overruling and dismissing the certiorari.

2. Under section 4201 of the Civil Code (1910), when the superior court sustains a certiorari it has no authority to render also a final judgment, if issues of fact are involved and the case does not necessarily depend upon a controlling question of law. Almand v. Ga. R. Co., 102 Ga. 151 (29 S. E. 159) ; Ga. R. Co. v. Partee, 107 Ga. 789 (33 S. E. 668) ; Williams v. Bradfield, 116 Ga. 705 (43 S. E. 57) ; Patterson v. Central Ry. Co., 117 Ga. 827 (45 S. E. 250) ; Atlantic Coast Lime R. Co. v. Shuman, 121 Ga. 113 (48 S. E. 680); Bass Dry Goods Co. v. Electric Battery Co., 123 Ga. 640 (51 S. E. 579); Langley Mfg. Co. v. Frey, 10 Ga. App. 753 (4) (73 S. E. 1074). But when the finding of the trial court should be and is sustained and the certiorari overruled, there is no error. in rendering final judgment in the case. Ford v. Price, 116 Ga. 793 (2) (43 S. E. 69) ; Ga. So. & Fla. Ry. Co. v. Giddens, 117 Ga. 799 (45 S. E. 67). Indeed, where a certiorari bond has been given, this would seem the better and more proper procedure. See Bailey v. Ware, 19 Ga. App. 255 (91 S. E. 275).

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, P. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.

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

Related

Law v. State
89 S.E.2d 550 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1955)
Deaton v. Taliaferro
57 S.E.2d 215 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1950)
Murphy v. Drum & Bugle Corps
190 S.E. 67 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1937)
Crine v. Morton Salt Co.
174 S.E. 723 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1934)
Hancock v. Allen
116 S.E. 321 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1923)
Wilson v. Citizens & Southern Bank
99 S.E. 239 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1919)
Ray v. Cruce
94 S.E. 899 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1918)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
91 S.E. 910, 19 Ga. App. 475, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 168, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pittman-v-alexander-gactapp-1917.