Thompson v. Central of Georgia Railway Co.

Supreme Court of Georgia

Thompson v. Central of Georgia Railway Co.

103 S.E.2d 555, 214 Ga. 130, 1958 Ga. LEXIS 349

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedMay 7, 1958

Docket20020

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 103 S.E.2d 555 (Thompson v. Central of Georgia Railway Co.) 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.

Bluebook

Thompson v. Central of Georgia Railway Co., 103 S.E.2d 555, 214 Ga. 130, 1958 Ga. LEXIS 349 (Ga. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

Wyatt, Presiding Justice.

Mrs. Willie Mae Thompson filed her suit for damages against Central of Georgia Railway Company and Louisville & Wadley Railroad Company, on account of the death of her alleged husband. The defense filed by the defendants alleged that the plaintiff had been legally divorced from her husband. The validity of an alleged divorce decree was thus at issue. The trial court ruled that the divorce decree was valid. The Constitution of this State as to the jurisdiction of this court provides that the jurisdiction shall include “all divorce and alimony cases.” Code (Ann.) § 2-3704. If jurisdiction of this case is vested in this court, it must be by virtue of the above-quoted portion from the Code section cited. It is clear that this case is neither a “divorce” case nor an “alimony” case. See Henderson v. Henderson, 209 Ga. 148 (71 S. E. 2d 210). It follows that the Court of Appeals and not this court has jurisdiction of this case.

Transferred to the Court of Appeals.

All the Justices concur.

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

Wyatt, Presiding Justice.

Mrs. Willie Mae Thompson filed her suit for damages against Central of Georgia Railway Company and Louisville & Wadley Railroad Company, on account of the death of her alleged husband. The defense filed by the defendants alleged that the plaintiff had been legally divorced from her husband. The validity of an alleged divorce decree was thus at issue. The trial court ruled that the divorce decree was valid. The Constitution of this State as to the jurisdiction of this court provides that the jurisdiction shall include “all divorce and alimony cases.” Code (Ann.) § 2-3704. If jurisdiction of this case is vested in this court, it must be by virtue of the above-quoted portion from the Code section cited. It is clear that this case is neither a “divorce” case nor an “alimony” case. See Henderson v. Henderson, 209 Ga. 148 (71 S. E. 2d 210). It follows that the Court of Appeals and not this court has jurisdiction of this case.

Transferred to the Court of Appeals.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

103 S.E.2d 555, 214 Ga. 130, 1958 Ga. LEXIS 349, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thompson-v-central-of-georgia-railway-co-ga-1958.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack