Syllabus
by the Court.
The
constitutional amendment of 1912 (Const. art. 6, § 7)
authorized the abolition of justices' courts in certain
cities, with authority in the Legislature to establish in
lieu thereof municipal courts, with provision for the
correction of errors in and by such courts by the superior
court, or Supreme Court, or Court of Appeals. The act
creating the municipal court of Atlanta (Acts 1913, p. 145)
provided for a writ of error to the Court of Appeals. The
constitutional amendment of 1916 (see Laws 1916, p. 19)
allows writs of error to the Supreme Court and Court of
Appeals only from superior courts, and from the city courts
of Atlanta and Savannah and such other like courts as have
been or may hereafter be established in other cities. The
municipal court of Atlanta is not a city court like the city
court of Atlanta or that of Savannah. The provision of law
for a writ of error from the municipal court of Atlanta to
the Court of Appeals is repealed by the amendment of 1916.
The
Court of Appeals is without jurisdiction to hear and decide
any case pending in that court on writ of error from the
municipal court of Atlanta. Where a law conferring
jurisdiction is repealed without any reservation as to
pending cases, all such cases fall with the law.
Additional Syllabus by Editorial Staff.
A party
to a suit has no vested right to an appeal or writ of error
from one court to another, and the same authority which
bestowed the privilege of appeal may withhold it.
The
right of appeal is not a common-law right, but depends on
written law.
Certified
questions from Court of Appeals.
Action
between D. J. Griffin and C. A. Sisson. Judgment for the
latter, and the former brings error, and question certified
from the Court of Appeals as to whether it had jurisdiction
to decide any case pending before it on writ of error to the
municipal court of Atlanta. Question answered in the
negative.
EVANS
P.J.
The
Court of Appeals certified to this court the question of the
effect of the constitutional amendment of 1916, defining the
jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals, upon so much of the act
of 1913 (Acts 1913, p. 145) establishing the municipal court
of Atlanta as authorizes a writ of error from that court to
the Court of Appeals in virtue of the constitutional
amendment of 1912 (Const. art. 6, § 7), empowering the
General Assembly to establish municipal courts in cities
having a population of over 20,000, with provision for the
correction of errors by the superior court or the Court of
Appeals of the Supreme Court, as the General Assembly in its
discretion may authorize. The answer to this query depends
upon a holding whether there is such repugnance between the
constitutional amendments of 1912 and 1916 that the latter
amendment impliedly repeals the provisions of the former so
far as the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals to entertain
writs of error from a municipal court is affected. This court
has held:
"If an amendment to the Constitution has been proposed
by the Legislature, duly submitted to the voters of the state
for ratification or rejection, and by them has been ratified
so that the amendment has become an integral part of the
Constitution, it cannot be declared void on the ground that
in some particular it does not accord with some other
provision of the same instrument. The different provisions of
the Constitution should be harmonized, if practicable. If an
amendment duly adopted necessarily conflicts with some
previous provision, the amendment, being the last expression
of the sovereign will of the people, will prevail as an
implied modification pro tanto of the former provision."
Hammond v. Clark, 136 Ga. 313, 71 S.E. 479, 38
L.R.A. (N. S.) 77; McWilliams v. Smith, 142 Ga. 209,
82 S.E. 569.
Prior
to the establishment of the Court of Appeals by the
constitutional amendment of 1906 (Const. art. 6, § 2, par. 9)
the Supreme Court was the sole reviewing court, in this
state, and was created--
"for the trial and correction of errors from the
superior courts, and from the city courts of Atlanta and
Savannah, and such other like courts as may be hereafter
established in other cities" (Const. art. 6, § 2, par.
5).
The
purpose of the establishment of the Court of Appeals was to
relieve the congestion of business in the Supreme Court by
the creation of another court of review. By the
constitutional amendment of 1906 (Const. art. 6, § 2, par. 5)
the Supreme Court was given jurisdiction to correct--
"errors in law and equity from the superior courts in
all civil cases, whether legal or equitable, originating
therein or carried thereto from the court of ordinary, and in
all cases of conviction of a capital felony, and for the
determination of questions certified to it by the Court of
Appeals."
By the
same amendment the Court of Appeals was given--
"jurisdiction for the trial and correction of errors in
law and equity from the superior courts in all cases in which
such jurisdiction is not conferred by this constitution on
the Supreme Court, and from the city courts of Atlanta and
Savannah, and such other like courts as have been or may be
hereafter established in other cities; and in such other
cases as may hereafter be prescribed by law; except that
where, in a case pending in the Court of Appeals, a question
is raised as to the construction of a provision of the
Constitution of this state or of the United States, or as to
the constitutionality of an act of the General Assembly of
this state, and a decision of the question is necessary to
the determination of the case, the Court of Appeals shall so
certify to the Supreme Court, * * * which, after having
afforded to the parties an opportunity to be heard thereon
shall instruct the Court of Appeals on the question so
certified, and the Court of Appeals shall be bound by the
instruction so given."
It will
thus be seen that the cleavage of jurisdiction was made to
turn in part on the origin of the case, whether from a
superior court or the court of ordinary, or from an inferior
court, such as a city or justice court. The amendment of 1912
authorized the Legislature to establish municipal courts in
cities of a certain size, and to provide writs of error
either to the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals or to the
superior court. Agreeably to this amendment the municipal
court of Atlanta was established, and a writ of error was
given to the Court of Appeals. The published volumes of the
reports of that court show that the Court of Appeals has
entertained writs of error from the municipal court of
Atlanta in a large number of cases, and that the business of
that court has been largely increased thereby. The General
Assembly appreciated the difficulty, if not impossibility, of
that court performing its constitutional task with the number
of judges allotted to do the work, and undertook to deal with
the situation by increasing the number of judges to six. Acts
1916, p. 56. This legislation was manifestly considered to be
only a temporary expedient, and to be regarded more as
symptomatic, rather than as an organic treatment of a serious
condition. The necessity of...
