Thompson v. Allen
This text of 25 S.E.2d 423 (Thompson v. Allen) 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.
Opinion
1. “Where it does not appear from the record that issues were made in the trial court, they can not be raised by certiorari in the superior court, and reviewed in this court.” Bolton v. Newman, 147 Ga. 400 (94 S. E. 236).
2. Where constitutional issues were raised for the first time in the superior court on certiorari from .a judgment of an inferior court, the superior court could not consider, nor can this court review, the constitutional questions thus sought to be made. Bolton v. Newman, supra; Edwards v. McNair, 152 Ga. 486 (110 S. E. 280).
3. On application of the foregoing principles of law to the facts in the present case, where the discharge of the plaintiff in error as an employee of the City of Atlanta was affirmed by a judgment of the personnel board of the city, and it was sought to review the judgment .of that board by certiorari in the superior court, and for the first time the constitutionality of the law under which the personnel board claimed authority to act was raised in the petition for certiorari, and the bill of exceptions assigns error on the judgment of the superior court dismissing the certiorari, the Court of Appeals, and not the Supreme Court, has jurisdiction of the writ of error. Code, § 2-3005; Conyers v. Luther Williams Banking Co., 162 Ga. 350 (133 S. E. 862); Loftin v. Southern Security Co., 162 Ga. 730 (134 S. E. 760).
Transferred to the Court of Appeals.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
25 S.E.2d 423, 195 Ga. 733, 1943 Ga. LEXIS 553, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thompson-v-allen-ga-1943.