Cantrell v. Davis

• Decision Date: 18 March 1933
• Docket Number: No. 9323.,9323.
• Parties: CANTRELL. v. DAVIS.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

176 Ga. 745

169 S.E. 38

CANTRELL.

v.DAVIS.

No. 9323.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

March 18, 1933.

Syllabus by the Court.

The municipal court of Atlanta, Fulton section, has no jurisdiction of the subject-matter of an action brought by a mother to recover a certain sum of money alleged to be due her by the defendant because of personal injuries sustained by her minor son (upon whom she was dependent for support and who contributed the amount of his wages to her support), and his death, resulting from such injuries.

Certified question from Court of Appeals.

Suit by Mrs. R. C. Cantrell against J. D. Davis, Jr. To review the judgment, plaintiff brings error to the Court of Appeals (169 S. E. 39), which certifies a question.

Question answered.

The Court of Appeals (in case No. 22938) certified the following question: "Section 10 of the act of 1925 (Ga. Laws 1925, pp. 370, 371) creating a 'Fulton section' of the municipal court of Atlanta (and amending the act approved August 20, 1913, creating the municipal court of Atlanta, and amending also all amendments to that act), provides that 'said municipal court of Atlanta, Fulton section, shall have concurrent jurisdiction with the superior courts of Fulton county and the City Court of Atlanta over the entire county of Fulton except as to cases arising from injuries to the person (italics ours) or reputa tion.' In another part of said section 10 of the act of 1925 it is provided that 'the municipal court of Atlanta, Fulton section, shall have jurisdiction over all subject-matter in and over the entire county of Fulton, concurrent with the superior courts of Fulton county and the City Court of Atlanta, except in cases arising from injuries to the person (italics ours) or reputation.' Section 26 of the act of 1913 (creating the municipal court of Atlanta [Laws 1913, p. 158]) was amended by section 2 of the act of 1922 [Laws 1922. p. 208, § 2], and that amendment was amended by section 3 of the aforesaid act of 1925 [Laws 1925, p. 380]. As finally amended, section 26 of the act of 1913 provides that 'the municipal court of Atlanta shall have' all the jurisdiction as to subject-matter which, at the time of the adoption of said constitutional amendment (relating to the abolition of justice courts in certain cities and the establishment in lieu thereof of such courts as the General Assembly may deem necessary), was exercised by justice courts and justices of the peace under the constitution and laws of this State, and in addition shall have jurisdiction to try and dispose of all civil cases of whatever nature, except injuries to the person or reputation (italics ours), concurrent with the superior courts, * * * wherein the principal sum * * * claimed to be due * * * or the value of the property sued for, does not exceed twenty-five hundred dollars, and of which jurisdiction is not vested exclusively in other courts by the constitution of the State of Georgia, and except extraordinary remedies as defined in sections 5440 to 5505, inclusive, of the Code of 1910.' In view of the above-quoted provisions of the acts of 1925 and 1913, has the municipal court of Atlanta, Fulton section, jurisdiction of the subject-matter of an action brought by a mother to recover a certain sum of money alleged to be due her by defendant because of certain personal injuries sustained by her minor son (upon whom she was dependent for support and who contributed the amount of his wages...