Turner v. Board of County Tax Assessors

Supreme Court of Georgia

Turner v. Board of County Tax Assessors

28 S.E.2d 902, 197 Ga. 241, 1944 Ga. LEXIS 247

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 8, 1944

Docket14755.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 28 S.E.2d 902 (Turner v. Board of County Tax Assessors) 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

Turner v. Board of County Tax Assessors, 28 S.E.2d 902, 197 Ga. 241, 1944 Ga. LEXIS 247 (Ga. 1944).

Pincite

Opinion

Jenkins, Presiding Justice.

Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is claimed because the judgment of the lower court on demurrer, as alleged in the bill of exceptions, is “contrary to” a designated amendment to the constitution of Georgia, and as alleged in a proffered amendment to the bill of exceptions, is “violative of” designated sections of the constitution of Georgia.

Under the constitutional amendment of 1916, now embodied in the Code, § 2-3005, defining the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals of this State, the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction to decide questions of law that involve application in a general sense of unquestioned and unambiguous provisions of the constitution to a given state of facts, and that do not involve construction of some eonstitu-

*242 No. 14755. February 8, 1944. J. O. Bowden, for plaintiff. E. Harold Sheals and Siandish Thompson, for defendant.

tional provision directly in question and doubtful either under its own terms or under the decisions of the Supreme Court of the State or of the United States, and that do not involve the constitutionality of any law of the State or of the United States or any treaty. Gulf Paving Company v. City of Atlanta, 149 Ga. 114 (99 S. E. 374). Jurisdiction is not vested in the Supreme Court merely because a judgment is excepted to as being unconstitutional. Payne v. Stale, 180 Ga. 609 (2) (180 S. E. 130). Since the original bill of exceptions and the amendment thereto, alleging that the judgment was' violative of the constitution, relate only to an application of provisions of the constitution, setting forth, in effect that the judgment on demurrer was violative of certain constitutional provisions, and do not bring in question any construction thereof, it is unnecessary for this court to pass upon the propriety of the proffered amendments to the bill of exceptions, since under any view the Court of Appeals and not the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to pass upon the writ of error. Morris v. Tatum, 50 Ga. App. 315 (3) (178 S. E. 167), and cit. See Dennard v. State, 46 Ga. App. 513 (168 S. E. 311). Accordingly, this case is

Transferred to the Court of Appeals.

All the Jusliees conewr.

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

Jenkins, Presiding Justice.

Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is claimed because the judgment of the lower court on demurrer, as alleged in the bill of exceptions, is “contrary to” a designated amendment to the constitution of Georgia, and as alleged in a proffered amendment to the bill of exceptions, is “violative of” designated sections of the constitution of Georgia.

Under the constitutional amendment of 1916, now embodied in the Code, § 2-3005, defining the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals of this State, the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction to decide questions of law that involve application in a general sense of unquestioned and unambiguous provisions of the constitution to a given state of facts, and that do not involve construction of some eonstitu-

*242 No. 14755. February 8, 1944. J. O. Bowden, for plaintiff. E. Harold Sheals and Siandish Thompson, for defendant.

tional provision directly in question and doubtful either under its own terms or under the decisions of the Supreme Court of the State or of the United States, and that do not involve the constitutionality of any law of the State or of the United States or any treaty. Gulf Paving Company v. City of Atlanta, 149 Ga. 114 (99 S. E. 374). Jurisdiction is not vested in the Supreme Court merely because a judgment is excepted to as being unconstitutional. Payne v. Stale, 180 Ga. 609 (2) (180 S. E. 130). Since the original bill of exceptions and the amendment thereto, alleging that the judgment was' violative of the constitution, relate only to an application of provisions of the constitution, setting forth, in effect that the judgment on demurrer was violative of certain constitutional provisions, and do not bring in question any construction thereof, it is unnecessary for this court to pass upon the propriety of the proffered amendments to the bill of exceptions, since under any view the Court of Appeals and not the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to pass upon the writ of error. Morris v. Tatum, 50 Ga. App. 315 (3) (178 S. E. 167), and cit. See Dennard v. State, 46 Ga. App. 513 (168 S. E. 311). Accordingly, this case is

Transferred to the Court of Appeals.

All the Jusliees conewr.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

28 S.E.2d 902, 197 Ga. 241, 1944 Ga. LEXIS 247, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/turner-v-board-of-county-tax-assessors-ga-1944.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack