Slocumb v. Ross

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Slocumb v. Ross

168 S.E.2d 208, 119 Ga. App. 567, 1969 Ga. App. LEXIS 1169

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 23, 1969

Docket44373

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 168 S.E.2d 208 (Slocumb v. Ross) 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

Slocumb v. Ross, 168 S.E.2d 208, 119 Ga. App. 567, 1969 Ga. App. LEXIS 1169 (Ga. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

Pannell, Judge.

A proceeding was brought by G. B. Slocumb against James M. Ross, Jr., and Juanita Billingslea in the Court [568]*568of Ordinary of Jones County, for the removal of an obstruction from a private way. The ordinary found for the applicant and ordered the obstruction removed. The respondents, being dissatisfied with the judgment of the ordinary, appealed to the superior court pursuant to Code Ann. § 83-120, but did not serve the opposing party with a copy of the notice. A motion to dismiss the appeal in the superior court was made on the ground that a copy of the appeal was required to be served on the opposing party under Section 5 (a) of the Civil Practice Act {Code Ann. § 81A-105 (a)). Whether the Civil Practice Act applies to the court of ordinary, since the court of ordinary is a court of record (see Section 1 of the Civil Practice Act; Ga. L. 1966, pp. 609, 610; Code Ann. § 81A-101), and whether, since the statutory method of appeal from a ruling under Code Ann. § 83-120 has no rule in conflict with the requirements of service of papers upon the opposing party under Section 5 (a) of the Civil Practice Act, supra (see Section 81 of the Civil Practice Act, as amended by the Act of 1967, pp. 226, 241), it is necessary to serve the opposing party with a copy of the notice of appeal to the superior court, it is not necessary to decide for the reason that the proceeding involved here was not a proceeding in the court of ordinary and therefore not a proceeding in a court of record. “The removal of obstructions from a private way is a matter for the decision of the ■ ordinary, not the court of ordinary. Fortson v. Maddox, 67 Ga. 282 (1).” Little v. McCalla, 20 Ga. App. 324 (3) (93 SE 37). The Civil Practice Act having no application thereto, and there being no requirement for service of the appeal on the opposing party under the statutory procedure governing appeals to the superior court from the decision of the ordinary in ordering an obstruction removed from a private way (Code § 6-101 et seq.; Rogers v. Anderson, 95 Ga. App. 637 (98 SE2d 388)), the judge of the superior court did not err in refusing to dismiss the appeal.

Judgment affirmed.

Felton, C. J., and Quillian, J., concur.

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

Pannell, Judge.

A proceeding was brought by G. B. Slocumb against James M. Ross, Jr., and Juanita Billingslea in the Court [568]*568of Ordinary of Jones County, for the removal of an obstruction from a private way. The ordinary found for the applicant and ordered the obstruction removed. The respondents, being dissatisfied with the judgment of the ordinary, appealed to the superior court pursuant to Code Ann. § 83-120, but did not serve the opposing party with a copy of the notice. A motion to dismiss the appeal in the superior court was made on the ground that a copy of the appeal was required to be served on the opposing party under Section 5 (a) of the Civil Practice Act {Code Ann. § 81A-105 (a)). Whether the Civil Practice Act applies to the court of ordinary, since the court of ordinary is a court of record (see Section 1 of the Civil Practice Act; Ga. L. 1966, pp. 609, 610; Code Ann. § 81A-101), and whether, since the statutory method of appeal from a ruling under Code Ann. § 83-120 has no rule in conflict with the requirements of service of papers upon the opposing party under Section 5 (a) of the Civil Practice Act, supra (see Section 81 of the Civil Practice Act, as amended by the Act of 1967, pp. 226, 241), it is necessary to serve the opposing party with a copy of the notice of appeal to the superior court, it is not necessary to decide for the reason that the proceeding involved here was not a proceeding in the court of ordinary and therefore not a proceeding in a court of record. “The removal of obstructions from a private way is a matter for the decision of the ■ ordinary, not the court of ordinary. Fortson v. Maddox, 67 Ga. 282 (1).” Little v. McCalla, 20 Ga. App. 324 (3) (93 SE 37). The Civil Practice Act having no application thereto, and there being no requirement for service of the appeal on the opposing party under the statutory procedure governing appeals to the superior court from the decision of the ordinary in ordering an obstruction removed from a private way (Code § 6-101 et seq.; Rogers v. Anderson, 95 Ga. App. 637 (98 SE2d 388)), the judge of the superior court did not err in refusing to dismiss the appeal.

Judgment affirmed.

Felton, C. J., and Quillian, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

168 S.E.2d 208, 119 Ga. App. 567, 1969 Ga. App. LEXIS 1169, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/slocumb-v-ross-gactapp-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack