Richardson v. Waits

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Richardson v. Waits

198 S.E. 116, 58 Ga. App. 143, 1938 Ga. App. LEXIS 207

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJune 29, 1938

Docket26890

StatusPublished

This text of 198 S.E. 116 (Richardson v. Waits) 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

Richardson v. Waits, 198 S.E. 116, 58 Ga. App. 143, 1938 Ga. App. LEXIS 207 (Ga. Ct. App. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

Felton, J.

The city court of Decatur does not have jurisdiction of a rule against a constable of a justice’s court, to require him to pay over money alleged to have been collected under an execution issued from a justice’s court. The Code, § 24-205, gives the superior courts such jurisdiction by declaring constables to be officers of the superior court. § 24-815, giving the superior courts jurisdiction over inferior tribunals relates to the extraordinary equitable powers of the superior courts. Black v. Weaver, 7 Ga. App. 507 (67 S. E. 389); Pyles v. Easterling, 30 Ga. App. 783 (119 S. E. 351); Griffin v. Nix, 33 Ga. App. 136 (125 S. E. 732). The act creating the city court of Decatur (Ga. L. 1922, p. 248, §§ 3, 14), does not confer such jurisdiction on that court, because the jurisdiction of superior courts of officers who are not by law declared to be officers of the superior court is an exercise [144]*144of the exclusive, extraordinary equitable powers of the superior court, which are not and can not be conferred upon city courts by legislative enactment. The court erred in not dismissing the money rule on the motion of the constable. It is unnecessary to pass on the other questions involved.

Judgment reversed.

Stephens, P. J., cmd Sutton, J., concur.

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

Felton, J.

The city court of Decatur does not have jurisdiction of a rule against a constable of a justice’s court, to require him to pay over money alleged to have been collected under an execution issued from a justice’s court. The Code, § 24-205, gives the superior courts such jurisdiction by declaring constables to be officers of the superior court. § 24-815, giving the superior courts jurisdiction over inferior tribunals relates to the extraordinary equitable powers of the superior courts. Black v. Weaver, 7 Ga. App. 507 (67 S. E. 389); Pyles v. Easterling, 30 Ga. App. 783 (119 S. E. 351); Griffin v. Nix, 33 Ga. App. 136 (125 S. E. 732). The act creating the city court of Decatur (Ga. L. 1922, p. 248, §§ 3, 14), does not confer such jurisdiction on that court, because the jurisdiction of superior courts of officers who are not by law declared to be officers of the superior court is an exercise [144]*144of the exclusive, extraordinary equitable powers of the superior court, which are not and can not be conferred upon city courts by legislative enactment. The court erred in not dismissing the money rule on the motion of the constable. It is unnecessary to pass on the other questions involved.

Judgment reversed.

Stephens, P. J., cmd Sutton, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

198 S.E. 116, 58 Ga. App. 143, 1938 Ga. App. LEXIS 207, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richardson-v-waits-gactapp-1938.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack