Jones v. Pierce

• Decision Date: 17 May 1941
• Docket Number: 13705.
• Citation: 14 S.E.2d 739,192 Ga. 217
• Parties: JONES v. PIERCE.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

14 S.E.2d 739

192 Ga. 217

JONES v. PIERCE.

No. 13705.

Supreme Court of Georgia

May 17, 1941

This bill of exceptions was brought from a judgment of Richmond superior court, overruling a petition for certiorari from the municipal court of Augusta, after disallowing an amendment to that petition. The record shows that in 1925 a fi. fa. was issued on a judgment of the same superior court; and that in 1927 another fi. fa. was issued on another judgment rendered against the same defendant as principal and his surety on a supersedeas bond, after a remittitur from the Court of Appeals. Pierce v. Jones, infra. On an affidavit in the municipal court, stating that the plaintiff's debt was based on the 1925 judgment in the superior court, the municipal court issued garnishments returnable to the superior court. On motion by the defendant the municipal court passed an order, holding the garnishments void, because both of the judgments and exceptions on which they were based were barred by the statute of limitations, and because the second execution was illegal for another reason. The petition for certiorari assigned error on these rulings, and attacked the jurisdiction of the municipal court on the ground that the garnishments were returnable to the superior court. The judge of the superior court sanctioned the writ. In the present bill of exceptions, the petitioner for certiorari assigns error on the grounds that the judge of the superior court was without authority to hold adversely to the petitioner after sanctioning the writ; that he 'erred in not holding all proceedings in the municipal court void because the case * * * was pending in the superior court and the garnishments were returnable to that court, and the municipal court had no jurisdiction whatever. Also the action of the municipal court involved a stretch of any powers of equity, and under the law that court has no equity jurisdiction. The garnishees were mere intermeddlers;' and 'when the certiorari reached the judge of the superior court, all the issues in the case were before him for adjudication on their merits as justice and equity required.' The bill of exceptions recites that it 'goes to the Supreme Court because it involves a question of equity.' In neither the petition for certiorari not the proceedings in the municipal court is there any reference to any question of equity. The record also fails to show that the original superior-court case, in which the judgments forming the basis of the municipal court garnishments were entered, was an equity cause.

Fleming & Fleming, of Augusta, for plaintiff in error.

Benj. E. Pierce, Benj. E. Pierce, Jr., and Franklin H. Pierce, all of Augusta, for defendant in error.

Syllabus Opinion by the Court.

JENKINS, Justice.

1. The mere designation of a case as one in 'equity' without...