Sutker v. Pennsylvania Insurance

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Sutker v. Pennsylvania Insurance

152 S.E.2d 578, 114 Ga. App. 627, 1966 Ga. App. LEXIS 877

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedNovember 15, 1966

Docket42435

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 152 S.E.2d 578 (Sutker v. Pennsylvania Insurance) 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

Sutker v. Pennsylvania Insurance, 152 S.E.2d 578, 114 Ga. App. 627, 1966 Ga. App. LEXIS 877 (Ga. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Eberhardt, Judge.

This action upon an insurance contract was amended by adding three counts seeking, inter alia, a reformation of the contract to include a coverage for loss sustained by the insured from the negligent act of an uninsured motorist. The petition, as thus amended, was dismissed upon general demurrer.

The amendment of the petition, seeking reformation of the contract, converted the action from one at law to one in equity, and hence the Supreme Court rather than the Court of Appeals, has jurisdiction of the appeal. Art. VI, Sec. II, Par. IV, Constitution of 1945 (Code Ann. § 2-3704); American Associated Companies v. Vaughan, 210 Ga. 141, 144 (1) (78 SE2d 43); Benton v. Benton, 164 Ga. 541 (139 SE 68); Dixie Belle Mills v. Specialty Machine Co., 103 Ga. App. 478 (2) (120 SE2d 54). “The jurisdiction of [the Supreme Court] is not limited to good cases in equity, but will embrace both good and bad equity cases.” Consequently, “even though [the petition, as amended] may not state a valid and subsisting cause of action for [equitable] relief,” it is within that court’s jurisdiction. O’Callaghan v. Bank of Eastman, 180 Ga. 812, 818 (180 SE 847). The appeal is accordingly

Transferred to the Supreme Court.

Bell, P. J., and Jordan, J., concur.

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

Eberhardt, Judge.

This action upon an insurance contract was amended by adding three counts seeking, inter alia, a reformation of the contract to include a coverage for loss sustained by the insured from the negligent act of an uninsured motorist. The petition, as thus amended, was dismissed upon general demurrer.

The amendment of the petition, seeking reformation of the contract, converted the action from one at law to one in equity, and hence the Supreme Court rather than the Court of Appeals, has jurisdiction of the appeal. Art. VI, Sec. II, Par. IV, Constitution of 1945 (Code Ann. § 2-3704); American Associated Companies v. Vaughan, 210 Ga. 141, 144 (1) (78 SE2d 43); Benton v. Benton, 164 Ga. 541 (139 SE 68); Dixie Belle Mills v. Specialty Machine Co., 103 Ga. App. 478 (2) (120 SE2d 54). “The jurisdiction of [the Supreme Court] is not limited to good cases in equity, but will embrace both good and bad equity cases.” Consequently, “even though [the petition, as amended] may not state a valid and subsisting cause of action for [equitable] relief,” it is within that court’s jurisdiction. O’Callaghan v. Bank of Eastman, 180 Ga. 812, 818 (180 SE 847). The appeal is accordingly

Transferred to the Supreme Court.

Bell, P. J., and Jordan, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

152 S.E.2d 578, 114 Ga. App. 627, 1966 Ga. App. LEXIS 877, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sutker-v-pennsylvania-insurance-gactapp-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack