Hartell v. Searcy
| Decision Date | 31 January 1861 |
| Parties | Hartell, Trustee. vs. Searcy. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Trover, in Talbot Superior Court. Decided by Judge Worrill, at the September Term, 1859.
This was an action of Trover, brought by Firman Hartell, as the trustee of Mrs. Louisa E. Cuthbert, against William Searcy, to recover damages for the alleged conversion of certain negro slaves.
The action was dismissed in the Court below, and the decision was excepted to, and brought before this Court by writ of error, returnable to the January Term, 1860. That term being pretermitted, for providential cause, the case went over to the next succeeding term, at which time, a motion was made by counsel for defendant in error, to dismiss the writ of error, on the ground that the plaintiff, notwithstanding the pendency of the writ of error in this case, commenced an action for the identical property, against the defendant, in the Sixth Circuit Court of the United States, for the Southern District of Georgia, in which judgment was duly rendered in favor of the defendant, at the April Term, 1860. The facts on which the motion rested, were verified by affidavits; but this Court, requiring the better and higher evidence furnished by an exemplification of the Circuit Court judgment, the case was continued, to enable the counsel for defendant to obtain that exemplification.
Counsel for the defendant at this term, appear in Court, with the exemplification of the said judgment in the United States Circuit Court, and renew the motion to dismiss the writ of error.
Johnson & Sloan for the motion.
Levi B. Smith contra.
By the Court.—Lumpkin, J., delivering the opinion.
A party is not entitled to prosecute a suit for the same cause of action in different Courts, or in the same tribunal, at the same time. Where the State and Federal Courts have concurrent jurisdiction, the rule is, for that Court to have precedence which first obtains jurisdiction. Here the action was brought first in Talbot county, but was dismissed; a bill of exceptions was certified and filed, but before the case could be heard, the plaintiff renewed his action in the Sixth Circuit Court of the United States, for the Southern District of Georgia. The defendant, willing to litigate in that forum, appeared and defended the case there, and a judgment has again been rendered in his favor. Upon proof of these facts, he moves to dismiss the writ of error pending in this Court; and we think he is entitled to do so. Unless ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McIlwrath v. Hollander
...Cromwell v. Clay, 1 Dana 578; Kennard v. Adams, 11 B. Mon. 105; Jones v. Lusk, 2 Met. (Ky.) 360; Dudley v. Price, 10 B. Mon. 88; Hartell v. Searcy, 32 Ga. 190; Davis v. Christian, 15 Gratt. 11; Griffith v. Griffith, 1 Hoff. Ch. 153; 1 Daniels Ch., 402; Carrington v. Brents, 1 McLean 167; Ed......
-
Pope v. City of Atlanta
...1 This decision is also contrary to existing case law. See e. g., Chilivis v. Dasher, 236 Ga. 669, 225 S.E.2d 32 (1976), Hartell v. Searcy, 32 Ga. 190 (1861). Our cases have consistently held that federal court judgments are entitled to the same preclusive effect as judgments of this state,......
-
Garrett v. Panacon Corp.
...to prosecute the same claim simultaneously in two different courts-a situation wholly unlike that presented here. Nor does Hartell v. Searcy, 32 Ga. 190, require that this motion to dismiss be granted. The notice of this appeal was timely filed; both parties have submitted multiple briefs; ......
-
Atlanta & F.R. Co. v. Blanton
...had paid the debt in full. It was dismissed on the ground that there was no longer an existing cause of action. See, also, Hartell v. Searcy, 32 Ga. 190, Kirtland v. Mayor, etc., 62 Ga. 747; in the latter of which cases it is held that settlements and compromises are exceptions to the rule ......