Giles v. Spinks

• Decision Date: 30 September 1879
• Citation: 64 Ga. 206
• Parties: Giles, ordinary, for use. v. Spinks et al.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

64 Ga. 206

Giles, ordinary, for use. v. Spinks et al.

Supreme Court of the State of Georgia

(September Term, 1879.)

*Jurisdiction. Verdict. Damages. Practice in the Superior Court. Before Judge Simmons. Houston Superior Court. November Adjourned Term, 1878.

This was a suit by the ordinary for the use of Jaques & Johnson against Spinks, constable, and the sureties on his bond. The case was brought in the county court of Houstoncounty; the breach alleged was the failure to realize the amount of two fi. fas. placed in his hands, bearing interest as stated in them; the damages were laid at $100.00. The county judge rendered judgment for plaintiff for the principal sum of $97.79, and defendants appealed. On the appeal the jury found the following verdict: "We, the jury, find for plaintiffs $43.77, with interest from the 14th of December, 1873, at one and one-half per cent. per month; also the sum of $43.77, with interest at two and one-half per cent. per month from the 24th day of December, 1873, against H. N. Spinks, H. C. Harris and W. R. Brown, Jr., executor."

Defendants moved in arrest of judgment on the following, among other grounds:

(l.) Because the case was beyond the jurisdiction of the county court.

(2.) Because the verdict should have been for a fixed amount of damages, and no legal judgment could be entered on it as found.

The court sustained the motion, and plaintiff excepted.

W. E. Collier, for plaintiff in error.

A. L. Miller, for defendants.

JACKSON, Justice.

The plaintiff sued, on a constable's bond, the constable and his sureties for damage arising from failure to levy, laying his damage at one hundred dollars in the declaration. The suit was brought in the county court of Houston *county returnable to its monthly session. The jurisdiction at these sessions of that court is one hundred dollars. The case was taken by appeal to the superior court, where verdict was had for more than one hundred dollars, and the judgment was arrested.

1. It is the amount of damages laid in the declaration that fixes the jurisdiction, and not the verdict of the jury. Tyler Cotton Press Company v. Chevalier, 56 Ga., 494; Lee v. Nelms, 57 Ib., 256.

2. Therefore the jurisdiction is maintainable; and if the verdict be over the jurisdiction, and more than the plaintiff claims, it may be written down to the sum laid in the declaration. It cannot be for more. Harris v. Dub, 57 Ga., 77; Ansley v, Jordan, 61 Ib., 488, 208; 15 Ib., 534; 20 Ib., 91; 45 Ib., 94, and many others.

3. A verdict is certain which...