Herring v. R. L. Mathis Certified Dairy Co., 25362
| Citation | 171 S.E.2d 124,225 Ga. 653 |
| Decision Date | 08 October 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 25362,25362 |
| Parties | Betty Ruth HERRING v. R. L. MATHIS CERTIFIED DAIRY COMPANY et al. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Freeman R. Hardisty, Frank Fuller, Atlanta, Ernest McDonald, Dalton, for appellant.
Lokey & Bowden, Glenn Frick, O'Kelley, Hopkins & VanGerpen, H. Lowell Hopkins, Long. Weinberg & Ansley, Palmer H. Ansley, Charles M. Goetz, Jr., Atlanta, for appellees.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
The Supreme Court's jurisdiction of this appeal in a damage suit is predicated upon alleged constitutional questions raised by appellant's amended complaint. For prior appearance, see Bourn v. Herring, 225 Ga. 67, 166 S.E.2d 89. However, an examination of the allegations of the complaint shows that they do not raise any constitutional question for this court.
In this connection, paragraph 6C of the complaint first alleges that a certain statute is 'null and void' since it violates the equal protection provisions of the state and federal constitutions for specified reasons. However, each reason qualifies that assertion by alleging 'Thus, if applied under the facts and circumstances in the case at bar, said act would * * *' deny plaintiff equal protection of the law under such constitutional provisions. Paragraph 6D alleges in essence that 'If the Act * * * is construed and applied to the facts and circumstances in the case at bar as limiting the liability of the defendants * * * then such construction and application, as to this plaintiff, would * * *' violate the equal protection provisions of the state and federal constitutions.
Both of these paragraphs of the complaint are equivocal, and therefore fail to present any constitutional question bringing the case within the jurisdiction of this court. See in this connection, Gormley v. Searcy, 179 Ga. 389, 393, 175 S.E. 913; Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Suttles, 201 Ga. 84, 103, 38 S.E.2d 786; Dade County v. State of Georgia, 201 Ga. 241, 246, 39 S.E.2d 473.
Paragraph 6E alleges in substance that one of the defendants exercised no control or supervision over the deceased child, and that not to hold her liable would constitute a denial to plaintiff of rights provided by law and would constitute discriminatory deprivation of plaintiff's rights such as are granted others so or similarly situated, in violation of the equal protection provisions of the state and federal Constitutions.
This allegation does not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
North Georgia Finishing, Inc. v. Di-Chem, Inc.
...v. Thompson, 215 Ga. 860, 861, 113 S.E.2d 772; Ledford v. J. M. Muse, Corp., 224 Ga. 617, 163 S.E.2d 815; Herring v. R. L. Mathis Certified Dairy Co., 225 Ga. 653, 171 S.E.2d 124. See also Walker, bnf. v. Hall, 226 Ga. 68, 69, 172 S.E.2d 411; Tant v. State, 226 Ga. 761, 177 S.E.2d 484; Stro......
-
Herring v. R. L. Mathis Certified Dairy Co.
...issue was raised or involved and that the only questions for decision were within our jurisdiction. Herring v. R. L. Mathis Certified Dairy Co., 225 Ga. 653, 171 S.E.2d 124. 2. There is no merit in the several enumerations relative to the proceeding on a hearing of the motions for summary j......
-
Model Cleaners & Laundry, Inc. v. Per Corp.
...Power Co. v. City of Cedartown, 223 Ga. 453, 156 S.E.2d 51; Flynn v. State, 209 Ga. 519, 74 S.E.2d 461; Herring v. R. L. Mathis Certified Dairy Co., 225 Ga. 653, 171 S.E.2d 124, the attack upon the statute was insufficient to present any constitutional question which would place jurisdictio......
-
Ford v. Herbermann, 26437
...v. Kirchmeyer, 222 Ga. 79, 148 S.E.2d 387; Herrington v. City of Atlanta, 224 Ga. 465(5), 162 S.E.2d 420; Herring v. R. L. Mathis Certified Dairy Co., 225 Ga. 653, 171 S.E.2d 124. All issues respecting the receivership and injunction having been eliminated and there being no other equitable......