Coleman v. Grimes

• Court: Georgia Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: BECK, P.J. RUSSELL, C.J.
• Citation: Coleman v. Grimes, 154 Ga. 852, 115 S.E. 641 (Ga. 1923)
• Decision Date: 25 January 1923
• Docket Number: 3198.
• Parties: COLEMAN, SHERIFF, v. GRIMES.

115 S.E. 641

154 Ga. 852

COLEMAN, SHERIFF, v. GRIMES.

No. 3198.

Supreme Court of Georgia

January 25, 1923

Syllabus by the Court.

Where an application for the writ of habeas corpus shows on its face that the detention of the person whose release is sought is not illegal, as claimed in the application, but that in fact it is legal and under lawful authority, the application should be dismissed upon motion or upon general demurrer. This ruling is not in conflict with those cases holding that applications which are defective in form and insufficient from the standpoint of good pleading will not be dismissed where the person restrained of his liberty is, in response to the writ, brought before the court, and the court notwithstanding the defects in the pleadings of the writ will inquire into the cause of the detention and render judgment according to the facts.

Additional Syllabus by Editorial Staff.

The refusal to stay the discharge of a prisoner on habeas corpus until bill of exceptions can be prepared and supersedeas obtained is not ground for reversal, though it would be better to allow a reasonable time in which to file bill of exceptions.

Error from Superior Court, Emanuel County; R. N. Hardeman, Judge.

Habeas corpus by Minnie Grimes against Otis Coleman, Sheriff, etc. Judgment discharging the prisoner, and defendant brings error. Reversed.

R. H. Humphrey and Arthur W. Jordan, both of Swainsboro, for plaintiff in error.

F. H. Saffold, of Swainsboro, for defendant in error.

BECK P.J.

On March 18, 1922, Mrs. Minnie Grimes presented to the judge of the superior court of Emanuel county her petition for habeas corpus, wherein she alleged that J. H. Wyatt, her father, whose release from custody she sought, was held in jail by Otis Coleman, sheriff of the county, under and by virtue of a judgment of the judge of the city court of Swainsboro, remanding him to jail under a bail trover proceeding, and that the judgment under which he was being held showed upon its face that, as a matter of law, it was in effect an order discharging Wyatt from jail under his application for release from custody under the bail trover process. A copy of the petition, and of the judgment of the city court judge, is attached to the bill of exceptions. The respondent demurred generally to the petition for habeas corpus, for the reason that it failed to set forth any cause of action, etc. The court overruled the demurrer, and without hearing evidence, but upon the case as made by the pleadings, discharged the prisoner, and the respondent excepted.

We are of the opinion that the court erred in refusing to dismiss the petition for habeas corpus upon general demurrer. The petition shows on its face that the detention of the party whose release was sought in the habeas corpus proceeding was not illegal. It is true that in the petition for habeas corpus it is alleged that the detention and imprisonment of Wyatt is illegal; but in the petition itself in connection with this allegation are set forth facts that destroy the validity of the ground upon which the release of the person who is detained is sought, for it is alleged in the petition that J. H. Wyatt is detained in jail by the sheriff, and that this is being done under a judgment rendered by the judge of the city court of Swainsboro. This judgment is one remanding Wyatt to jail, and is as follows:

"The above and within case coming on for a hearing on this date, and after hearing the evidence produced and argument of counsel, it is the judgment of the court that the application be denied and the defendant be remanded, for the reason that it does not satisfactorily appear that the applicant, J. H. Wyatt, is unable to give the bond and security required by law. It does appear that the applicant is unable to produce the property; but the judgment of the court is based on the opinion the court entertains that the defendant applicant, J. H. Wyatt, herein, is not unable to comply with the law with reference to giving bond and security. Let the applicant pay the cost of these proceedings. This March 9, 1922. [ Signed by the judge of the city court.]"

This judgment shows that it was rendered in a habeas corpus proceeding; and while no part of that proceeding, other than the judgment, is set forth, it is clearly inferable that it was rendered upon petition by Wyatt for his release from confinement, brought about by...