Atl. Coast Line R. Co v. Autry

• Decision Date: 25 July 1911
• Docket Number: (No. 2,960.)
• Citation: 71 S.E. 918,9 Ga.App. 524
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals
• Parties: ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO. v. LANE & AUTRY.

9 Ga.App. 524

71 S.E. 918

ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO.

v.LANE & AUTRY.

(No. 2, 960.)

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

July 25, 1911.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

1. Justices of the Peace (§ 91^*)—Procedure —Statement of Cause of Action.

The statement of the plaintiffs' cause of action was sufficient for the purposes of a suit in the justice's court. It set forth plainly an action for damages to personal property. The statements of fact in the summons impliedly charged negligence, although it was not expressly alleged that the defendant was negligent.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Justices of the Peace, Cent. Dig. § 321; Dec. Dig. § 91.*]

2. Justices of the Peace (§ 194*)—Appeal to Jury—Certiorari.

There was no error in dismissing the certiorari. The remedy of the dissatisfied party was appeal, and not certiorari. An issue of fact was presented, which required the decision of a jury. Where the amount in controversy in a justice's court is $50 or less, and the issue involved is one purely of fact, there must be an appeal to a jury in the justice's court before the case can be carried to the superior court.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Justices of the Peace, Cent Dig. §§ 774, 775; Dec. Dig. § 194.*]

Error from Superior Court, Grady County; Frank Park, Judge.

Action by Lane & Autry against the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company. From a judgment of the superior court, dismissing certiorari to a justice of the peace, defendant brings error. Affirmed.

Cain & Willie, for plaintiff in error.

Ledford & Terrell, for defendants in error.

RUSSELL, J. [1] Lane & Autry sued the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company in a justice's court for damages. The justice of the peace rendered a judgment for the plaintiffs, and the defendant company sued out a writ of certiorari. Upon the bearing in the superior court the judge dismissed the certiorari. In the justice's court the plaintiff in error demurred to the summons generally, and also specially because it was not alleged the killing was done negligently, or by the negligent running of defendant's trains or cars. The justice overruled the demurrer, and exception was taken to this ruling. We think the ruling of the magistrate was right. The summons required the plaintiff "to answer to plaintiff's demand upon an action for damages to personal property, * * * a copy of which cause of action is hereto attached." In the copy of the cause of action attached to the summons, following an itemized statement of the dates upon which certain hogs were killed and the value of each, it is stated: "All of the above property killed by the running of engine, cars, or other machinery of the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company at and near McGriff street crossing in the town of Whigham, Ga., and in said district G. M., said county and state." We have several times ruled that niceties of pleading are not required in a justice's court, though, of course, it is required that the plaintiff shall so plainly and distinctly set forth his complaint as to define his cause of action and enable the defendant to be clearly apprised of what he is required to defend. We understand this to be the rule laid down by the Supreme Court in Macon & Birmingham Railway Company v. Walton, 121 Ga. 275, 48 S. E. 940, which is cited by counsel for plaintiff in error. In that case it was held that although it was permissible to style the plaintiff's suit as an action upon an account, when it was not technically such an action, the plaintiff is not relieved from the necessity of setting out his...