Epstin v. Levenson & Co.

• Court: Georgia Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: Blandford, Justice
• Citation: Epstin v. Levenson & Co., 79 Ga. 718, 4 S. E. 328 (Ga. 1887)
• Decision Date: 31 October 1887
• Parties: Epstin. vs. Levenson & Company.

79 Ga. 718

Epstin. vs. Levenson & Company.

Supreme Court of the State of Georgia

OCTOBER TERM, 1887.

Jurisdiction. Practice in Superior Court. Amendment. Before Judge Evs. City Court of Richmond County. June Term, 1887.

Reported in the decision.

J. H. Phinizy, by brief, for plaintiff in error.

J. S. & W. T. Davidson, for defendants.

Blandford, Justice.

1. These were two cases in the city court of Richmond county, brought by Levenson & Company against Epstin, one for an amount over $1,800, and the other for something over $700. The defendant, Epstin, moved to consolidate these cases. If they had been consolidated, the amount would have been over $2,000, and would have been beyond the jurisdiction of the court. The court refused to consolidate; and we think the court did right not to oust itself of jurisdiction.

2. It is true that the published laws, as published by the public printer, said that the city court of Richmond county should have jurisdiction not exceeding $5,000; but we have examined the enrolled act, and it says the jurisdiction shall not exceed $2,000; and the question is raised here, whether we shall go by the act as published by the public printer or by the enrolled act. To my mind it is a proposition easy of solution. If we should go by the act as published by the public printer, the printer would have the power to make any law he wished, just by changing the act of the legislature. We think that when an act has passed both branches of the legislature and has received the approval and signature of the governor, thepublication is complete. There is no law requiring the act to be published in a newspaper; that was repealed by the act of 1876 (p. 28). While the court, in the absence of the enrolled act, may look to the act as published by the public printer, yet where the enrolled act is presented to the court, or the court has knowledge of it and has inspected it, and it is different from the printed act, we think the enrolled act ought to govern.

3. It is contended by the plaintiff in error that, when the judge of the city court granted the application of Levenson & Co. to have the property attached sold as perishable property, being expensive to keep, the granting of that order was in effect a consolidation of these cases. We do not think so. There might be fifty attachments levied on the same property, either by the same person or by different persons, and one order in any one case would be sufficient to apply to all.

4. Another point...