Watkins v. Conway

Supreme Court of Georgia

Watkins v. Conway

136 S.E.2d 756, 220 Ga. 27, 1964 Ga. LEXIS 438

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedMay 7, 1964

Docket22450

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 136 S.E.2d 756 (Watkins v. Conway) 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

Watkins v. Conway, 136 S.E.2d 756, 220 Ga. 27, 1964 Ga. LEXIS 438 (Ga. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

Grice, Justice.

To a petition seeking to enforce a foreign judgment the defendant interposed a challenge reciting merely that he “generally demurs to the petition.” This did not raise the defense of a bar by a statute of limitation since the statute must be expressly invoked to raise such defense. Consolidated Distributors, Inc. v. City of Atlanta, 193 Ga. 853, 855 (20 SE2d 421). It follows that petitioner’s attacks upon the constitutionality of the statute of limitation applicable in this type of action (Code § 3-701) fail to present any proper constitutional question and, there being no other basis for the jurisdiction of this court, that this court is without jurisdiction. Constitution of Georgia, Art. VI, Sec. II, Par. IV (Code Ann. § 2-3704).

Transferred to the Court of Appeals.

All the Justices concur. Kilpatrick, Cody, Rogers, McClatchey & Regenstein, William G. Vance, for plaintiff in error. McFarland & Cooper, Martin McFarland, contra.

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

Grice, Justice.

To a petition seeking to enforce a foreign judgment the defendant interposed a challenge reciting merely that he “generally demurs to the petition.” This did not raise the defense of a bar by a statute of limitation since the statute must be expressly invoked to raise such defense. Consolidated Distributors, Inc. v. City of Atlanta, 193 Ga. 853, 855 (20 SE2d 421). It follows that petitioner’s attacks upon the constitutionality of the statute of limitation applicable in this type of action (Code § 3-701) fail to present any proper constitutional question and, there being no other basis for the jurisdiction of this court, that this court is without jurisdiction. Constitution of Georgia, Art. VI, Sec. II, Par. IV (Code Ann. § 2-3704).

Transferred to the Court of Appeals.

All the Justices concur. Kilpatrick, Cody, Rogers, McClatchey & Regenstein, William G. Vance, for plaintiff in error. McFarland & Cooper, Martin McFarland, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

136 S.E.2d 756, 220 Ga. 27, 1964 Ga. LEXIS 438, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/watkins-v-conway-ga-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack