Adams v. Payne, 22294

• Decision Date: 06 February 1964
• Docket Number: No. 22294,22294
• Citation: 219 Ga. 638,135 S.E.2d 423
• Parties: Naomi Ruth ADAMS et al. v. Jewel PAYNE et al.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

Page 423

135 S.E.2d 423

219 Ga. 638

Naomi Ruth ADAMS et al. v. Jewel PAYNE et al.

No. 22294.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Feb. 6, 1964.

Syllabus by the Court

Under an Act approved March 5, 1962, a superior court judge can in writing call on a superior court judge emeritus of his circuit or an adjoining circuit to serve and preside in any county of his circuit, but such request or order must specify the time place and duration of such service and be filed in the office of the clerk of the superior court of the county in which such service is to be performed. Compliance with the mandatory provisions of that Act is an indispensable prerequisite to clothe a superior court judge emeritus with power to render temporary service when such service is requested by a superior court judge.

Wiggins & Smith, M. T. Simmons, Jr., Atlanta, for plaintiffs in error.

Dennis, Bowden & Barton, Atlanta, for defendants in error.

CANDLER, Justice.

Art. VI, Sec. XIII, Par. I of the Constitution of 1945 was amended in 1958 so as to make superior court judges emeritus eligible to serve and preside in the superior courts of this State. Code Ann. § 2-4802. The amendment, however, provides that the General Assembly shall prescribe the method or manner in which they may be called on for temporary service. Ga.L.1958, p. 491. Pursuant to the power conferred by this amendment, the legislature passed an act in 1962 (Ga.L.1962, p. 547), Code § 24-2621a et seq. which authorizes any superior court judge of this State to request in writing a superior court judge emeritus of his circuit, or any adjoining circuit, to serve and preside in the superior court of any county of his circuit. The act further provides that such superior court judge in making such request shall specify the time, place and duration of the requested service and shall file a copy of the request or order in the office of the clerk of the superior court of the county in which such service is to be performed. The case sub judice was brought in the Superior Court of Clayton County. It is a proceeding in the nature of a habeas corpus. The petition for the writ was presented to Hon. William H. Reynolds, Judge Emeritus of the Clayton Judicial Circuit, on August 22, 1963. He issued the writ, heard the case and rendered a judgment awarding custody of the minor involved to the applicants. The respondents excepted and in their bill of exceptions alleged that the judgment rendered by Emeritus Judge Reynolds is void and of no legal effect because Judge Banke, the regular and only superior court judge of the Clayton Judicial Circuit, had not by written order requested him to preside and serve in his judicial circuit as a superior court judge emeritus as required by the Act of 1962. After the bill of exceptions was presented to Emeritus Judge Banke, as and on October 9, 1963, Judge Banke, as the record shows, signed an order nunc pro tunc effective as of July 30, 1963, requesting Emeritus Judge Reynolds to preside and serve in Clayton Superior Court from August 1, 1963, to September 3, 1963, 'and to conclude such matters after the aforesaid dates initiated during the period aforesaid' and filed such order in the office of the Clerk of the Superior Court of Clayton County on October 10, 1963. The record in this case does not show or tend to show that respondents knew that Judge Banke had not requested Emeritus Judge Reynolds to render temporary service in his court prior to the time he heard and determined this proceeding.

A judgment which is void for any cause is a mere nullity, and may be so held in any court when it becomes material to the interest of the parties to consider it. Code § 110-709; Hart v. Manson, 119 Ga. 865, 47 S.E. 345. 'A 'void' judgment is in reality no judgment at all. It is a mere nullity. It is attended by none of the consequences of a valid adjudication, nor is it entitled to the respect accorded to one. It can neither affect, impair, nor create rights. As to the person against whom it professes to be rendered, it binds him in no degree whatever, it has no effect as a lien upon his property, it does not raise an estoppel against him. As to the person in whose favor it professes to be, it places him in no better position than he occupied before; it gives him no new right, but an attempt to enforce it will place him in peril.' 1 Black on Judgments 248, § 170. When this court discovers...