Gray v. Mcneal

• Decision Date: 31 January 1853
• Docket Number: No. 68.,68.
• Parties: Thomas Gray, plaintiff in error, vs. William McNeal, defendant in error.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

12 Ga. 424

Thomas Gray, plaintiff in error, vs. William McNeal, defendant in error.

No. 68.

Supreme Court of the State of Georgia

JANUARY TERM, 1853.

Attachment, in Talbot Superior Court. Tried before Judge Iverson. September Term, 1852.

The attachment in this case was sued out upon judgments rendered in a Justice's Court. Upon the trial, the plaintiff below, William McNeal, introduced the Justice's docket, showing a memorandum of the judgments sued on. He also proved that the defendant below resided in the District at the time of the rendition of the judgment.

Thomas Gray, by his counsel, demurred to the evidence, on the ground that a Justice's Court, being a Court of limited jurisdiction, the plaintiff should prove the proceedings prior to the rendition of the judgments, and show that the Court had jurisdiction.

The Court overruled the motion, and said it was a matter to be decided by the Jury; and charged the Jury, that if they believed Gray lived in the district, at the time of the commencement of the suits upon which the judgments were obtained, they would then presume that the Court had jurisdiction, and the Justice of the Peace did his duty, and that he would not have rendered the judgment, unless the previous proceedings had been regular, and in conformity to the law.

To this decision and charge, exceptions were filed.

E. Wohrill, for plaintiff in error.

B. Hill, for defendant in error.

By the Court.—Warner, J. delivering the opinion,

The judgments obtained in the Justice's Court, which were offered in evidence, in support of the plaintiff's cause of action, were objected to, on the ground that it did not appear on the face of the proceedings that the Court rendering the judgment, had jurisdiction of the person of the defendant.

It is a well settled principle of the Common Law, that the judgments of Courts of special and limited jurisdiction, must show upon their face, such facts as are necessary to give to the Court rendering such judgment, jurisdiction of the person of the defendant, and the subject-matter of the suit; in other words, such jurisdiction must appear on the face of the proceedings on which such judgment is founded. 2 Bacon's Jib. 630, (title Courts, letter D.) Lord Conysby's case, 9th Modern, 95. The King vs. Chilvercolon, 8 Term Rep. 181. This principle of the Common Law has been distinctly recognized by this Court, in Tift et al. vs. Griffin, 5 Georgia Rep. 186; and in Grier vs. McLen-don, 7 Georgia Rep. 362.

It may be stated, as an incontrovertible legal proposition, that every power exercised by any Court, must be found in, and derived from the law of the land, and also be exercised in the mode and manner that law prescribes. While this principle of the Common Law, applicable to Courts of special and limited jurisdiction, is of equal force in this State, as if the same had been specially declared by a separate and distinct enactment of the Legislature, yet its application does not appear to have been so well understood by our Courts. Our Courts of Ordinary and Justice's Courts, are to be considered as Courts of limited jurisdiction, in contemplation of the Common Law. By the Act of 1810, the Courts of Ordinary have original jurisdiction conferred upon them of all testate and intestate's estates, appointing administrators and guardians, to qualify executors, administrators and guardians, and to bind out orphans, and all such other matters and things as appertain or relate to estates of deceased persons, whether testate or intestate. Prince, 239. If a judgment ofthe Court of Ordinary, granting leave to an administrator to sell the real estate of his intestate, should be offered in evidence in the Superior Court, in support of the title of a purchaser at such administrator\'s sale and it appeared, on the face of the proceedings or judgment so offered in evidence, that the intestate was dead, and that he died seized of real estate; that on the application of the administrator, leave was granted to sell it; and that notice of such application for sale had been given, as required by the Statute; these facts would show that the Court acted upon a subject-matter of which it had jurisdiction; for, as we have seen, by the Act of 1810, the Court has " original jurisdiction of all testate and intestate\'s estates, and all such other matters and things as appertain or relate to estates of deceased persons, whether testate or intestate." While nothing will be intended in favor of the existence of the facts indispensably necessary to give such a Court jurisdiction, beyond what appears on the face of the proceedings, for the reason stated by Bacon, " that these Courts are bounded and circumscribed by certain laws and stated rules, to which, in all their proceedings and judicial determinations, they must square themselves;" (2 Bacon\'s Ab. 625, (title Courts, letter D.) yet, when it is made to appear on the face of the proceedings, that the Court had jurisdiction of the subject-matter and the person, everything will be intended in favor of its judgment, and the Court will be presumed to have decided right, unless the contrary appears. The King vs. Chilverscoton, 8 Term Rep. 181. Service vs. Sherman, 1 John. Rep. 91. Peebles vs. Kittle, 2 John. Rep. 363.

When, therefore, the necessary facts appear on the face of the proceedings on which the judgment of the Court of Ordinary-is founded, ordering the sale of an intestate's real estate, to give to the Court jurisdiction of the subject-matter, it will be presumed that such jurisdiction was properly exercised, and that the Court had before it sufficient evidence that it was for the benefit of the heirs and creditors of such intestate's estate, that such sale should be made. The evidence which induced the Court to render its judgment, need not appear on the face of the proceedings. But when nothing appears on the face of theproceedings, on which the judgment of a Court of special and limited jurisdiction is founded, to give to such Court...