Bloomfield v. Liggett & Myers, Inc., 27779
| Decision Date | 13 April 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 27779,27779 |
| Parties | Joseph M. BLOOMFIELD v. LIGGETT & MYERS, INC., et al. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Smith, Cohen, Ringel, Kohler, Martin & Lowe, Hoke Smith, William G. Grant, Atlanta, for appellant.
Webster, Sheffield, Fleischmann, Hitchcock & Brookfield, Harvey D. Myerson, New York City, Hansell, Post, Brandon & Dorsey, Hugh M. Dorsey, Jr., Gary W. Hatch, Atlanta, for appellees.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
The Court of Appeals has certified the following question to this court for instruction: 'In an action in Fulton Superior Court for money damages and declaratory relief, does the right granted the plaintiff by the Constitution of 1945, Art. I, Sec. I, Par. IV (Code Ann. § 2-104), preclude judicial discretion as to the grant of a stay of the proceedings in the said Fulton Superior Court action pending the determination of an action previously filed by the defendants against the plaintiff in a New York federal district court, in which action the Georgia claim is a compulsory counterclaim under both the federal and Georgia laws?' Held:
The question is answered in the negative.
The language as it now appears in Art. I, Sec. I, Par. IV, Constitution of 1945 (Code Ann. § 2-104), i.e., 'No person shall be deprived of the right to prosecute or defend his own cause in any of the courts of this State, in person, by attorney, or both,' first appeared as Art. I, Sec. I, Par. IV, Constitution of 1877.
Small's A Stenographic Report of the Proceedings of the Constitutional Convention Held in Atlanta, Georgia, 1877 (Constitution Publishing Company, Atlanta, 1877) reflects the adoption of the language in 1877 as the proposal of Mr. Tift, who explained it as follows (p. 94):
In the light of the above and considering the prior constitutional history of this subject we view the present provision of the constitution as primarily intended to guarantee the right of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. Baptiste
...supra at 357(5), 519 S.E.2d 210. The dissent mistakenly claims that the majority is following the holding in Bloomfield v. Liggett & Myers, 230 Ga. 484, 198 S.E.2d 144 (1973). We have not even cited that case, and instead, as explained above, are following the longstanding rule of law estab......
-
U-Haul Co. of Ariz. v. Rutland
...which must weigh competing interests and maintain an even balance.(Citations and punctuation omitted.) Bloomfield v. Liggett & Myers , 230 Ga. 484, 485, 198 S.E.2d 144 (1973). As we recently explained, "whether to stay a civil action pending resolution of a parallel criminal prosecution is ......
-
Elliott v. State
...remained unchanged "[a]s the language of this paragraph remained unchanged in the 1976 Constitution"); Bloomfield v. Liggett & Myers, Inc., 230 Ga. 484, 484-485, 198 S.E.2d 144 (1973) (interpreting Art. I, Sec. I, Par. IV of the Constitution of 1945 in the light of the original meaning of t......
-
Black v. Black
...Motors Corp., 223 Ga.App. 259, 261(2), 477 S.E.2d 402 (1996) (citations and punctuation omitted). See also Bloomfield v. Liggett & Myers, Inc., 230 Ga. 484, 485, 198 S.E.2d 144 (1973) (“The power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the dispositi......