Gainesville Midland Ry v. Jackson

• Decision Date: 25 April 1907
• Docket Number: (No. 156.)
• Citation: 57 S.E. 1007,1 Ga.App. 632
• Parties: GAINESVILLE MIDLAND RY. v. JACKSON.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

57 S.E. 1007

1 Ga.App. 632

GAINESVILLE MIDLAND RY.

v.JACKSON.

(No. 156.)

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

April 25, 1907.

1. Courts—Court or Appeals—Jurisdiction —Error from City Court.

The Court of Appeals was created by constitutional amendment lawfully submitted to the people for ratification at the general state election held October 3, 1906. In pursuance of the provisions of the amendment, the Governor of the state issued a proclamation on October 12, 1906, declaring that the amendment had been duly ratified. Held, that the Court of Appeals was established on the date of the Governor's proclamation. Held further, that the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction of a writ of error signed by the judge of a city court December 31, 1906.

2. Carriers—Injury to Passengers — Evidence—Instructions.

There was no error in the ruling of the court complained of, and the issues in the case were fully and fairly submitted to the jury. The evidence clearly authorized the verdict.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 9, Carriers. §§ 1307-1314, 1159; vol. 20, Evidence, 887, 894.]

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error from City Court of Hall County; Prior, Judge.

Action by Juda Jackson against the Gainesville Midland Railway. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.

H. H. Dean, for plaintiff In error.

W. B. Sloan and H. H. Perry, for defendant in error.

HILL, C. J. Juda Jackson brought suit in the city court of Hall county against the Gainesville Midland Railway for damages resulting from personal injuries which she received from the defendant. On the trial of the case, the jury returned a verdict in her behalf for $750. The defendant made a motion for a new trial, and assigns error on the judgment of the trial court in refusing the motion. When the case was called in this court, a motion was made to dismiss the same because the court had no jurisdiction. The want of jurisdiction was placed on the ground that the certificate to the bill of exceptions, which constituted the writ of error, was signed by the judge on the 31st day of December, 1906, and that the Court of Appeals was not organized, and there was no such court in existence until January 1, 1907.

The constitutional amendment creating the Court of Appeals provided for the submission of the amendment to the vote of the people, as required by the Constitution of this state, in article 13, § 1, par. 1, and that, if ratified, the Governor should, when he ascertained such ratification from the Secretary of State (to whom the returns should be referred as in cases of the election of members of the General Assembly, to count and ascertain the result), issue his proclamation announcing such result and declaring the amendment ratified. Acts 1906, p. 27. The constitutional amendment thus proposed and submitted to the people was ratified at the general election held on October 3, 1906, and the Governor, after ascertaining the result as provided by law, issued his proclamation on the 12th day of October, 1906, in which he declared that the amendment creating the Court of Appeals was ratified. Executive Minutes 1906, p. 35. Under the provisions of this constitutional amendment, the judges of the Court of Appeals were elected by the people on November 6, 1906. Under these public acts, of which this court takes judicial cognizance, the Court of Appeals was therefore created by the ratification of the constitutional amendment, and became an established court when the Governor issued his proclamation October 12, 1906. It is true the court did not organize by the qualification of the judges until January 2, 1907, but the organization of the court is an entirely different matter from its creation, and takes place subsequent to its establishment. On the 31st day of December, 1906, it was competent and legal for a judge of a city court of this state to sign a writ of error sued out from a judgment of that court to the Court of Appeals. Counsel for the defendant in error has confounded the judges of the court with the court. The court when created became at once, upon the proclamation of the Governor, an integral part of the judiciary department of the state, and it existed as such whether there were judges thereof or not. We therefore refuse the motion to dismiss.

On the merits of the ease, the plaintiff in the court below proved substantially the following facts: On February 15, 1906, she boarded a passenger train on the line of the defendant's railway, at a regular station, and when she had gotten upon the platform of the train, and before she had time to get into the car or had time to get a seat, and while she was still on the platform of the car, it suddenly started and made a sudden jerk, throwing her down with great force across the coupling of the cars, and" very seriously and permanently injuring her. She was a negro, and as she got on the platform, and was starting to go into the car, an employe of the company told her not to go into the car into which she had started, but to go into the other car, and, in obedience...