Conyers v. Luther Williams Banking Co, (No. 5388.)

• Decision Date: 18 June 1926
• Docket Number: (No. 5388.)
• Citation: 133 S.E. 862,162 Ga. 350
• Parties: CONYERS . v. LUTHER WILLIAMS BANKING CO.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

162 Ga. 350

133 S.E. 862

CONYERS .

v.LUTHER WILLIAMS BANKING CO.

(No. 5388.)

Supreme Court of Georgia.

June 18, 1926.

(Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)

Error from Superior Court, Bibb County; Malcolm D. Jones, Judge.

Suit between Mrs. C. A. Conyers and the Luther Williams Banking Company. Judgment for the latter, petition for certiorari to the superior court was dismissed, and the former brings error. Transferred to the Court of Appeals.

Luther U. Bloodworth, of Macon, for plaintiff in error.

D. L. Churchwell, of Macon, for defendant in error.

Syllabus Opinion by the Court.

BECK, P. J. This was a petition for certiorari, which had been sanctioned by the judge of the superior court, in which petition plaintiff in certiorari sought to have reviewed a final judgment rendered in the municipal court in the city of Macon. When the case was called for a hearing, counsel for defendant in certiorari made a motion" to dismiss the petition for certiorari, upon the ground that "the writ of certiorari from the municipal court, city of Macon, had been abolished by the acts of the Legislature in 1925 (page 465)." This motion was sustained, and final judgment against plaintiff in certiorari was entered. To this judgment dismissing the petition the plaintiff in certiorari excepted; and in the bill of exceptions it is recited:

That the plaintiff in error "does here and now except and assigns the dismissal of the petition for certiorari as error, because the procedure provided for in the Acts of 1925, p. 465, did not govern the case at bar, for the reason that said claim case was tried on July 14, 1925, prior to the passage of the above act, and to do so would make said law retroactive in its effect."

And then follows the statement of three other grounds upon which plaintiff in error contends that the judgment of dismissal was erroneous, to wit: That so much of the act inquestion as relates to thex method of review of erroneous judgments, contained in sections 1 and 2, is unconstitutional and void because in conflict with article 6, § 4, par. 5, of the Constitution (Cede of 1910, § 6514); that sections 1 and 2 of the act are unconstitutional and void because in conflict with article 6, § 2, par. 9, of the Constitution, for reasons stated; and that subhead (d) of section 1 and section 2 of the act are unconstitutional because violative of section 4, art. 1, par. 1, ofthe Constitution of this state, for the reason stated in these grounds.

There is no recital in the bill of...