Marlowe v. Worrill

• Decision Date: 10 November 1936
• Docket Number: No. 11569.,11569.
• Citation: 188 S.E. 340,183 Ga. 275
• Parties: MARLOWE et al. v. WORRILL et al.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

183 Ga. 275

188 S.E. 340

MARLOWE et al.

v.WORRILL et al.

No. 11569.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Nov. 10, 1936.

Syllabus by Editorial Staff.

RUSSELL, C. J., dissenting.

Original proceeding for writ of mandamus by Charlie Marlowe and another against C. W. Worrill, Judge, and others. The writ was denied by a judgment of the Supreme Court without an opinion and the petitioner filed a motion for a rehearing.

Rehearing denied.

Wm. W. Flournoy, of DeFuniak Springs, Fla, for plaintiffs in error.

R. A. Patterson, Sol. Gen., and J. W. Harris, both of Cuthbert, and Hooper & Hooper, of Atlanta, for defendants in error.

Syllabus Opinion by the Court.

BELL, Justice.

A petition was filed in this court, praying that a writ of mandamus be issued by this court to compel the judge of the Pataula Circuit to grant a writ of error coram nobis returnable before that court. and requiring the solicitor general to show cause why pleas of guilty entered by the petitioners, and sentences of the court based thereon, should not be set aside for reasons stated. This court issued a mandamus nisi directed to the judge of the superior court, as prayed, but on September 18, 1936, after the judge had filed his response, a judgment was entered denying the mandamus absolute. No opinion was delivered. Within the proper time the petitioners filed a motion for a rehearing, contending that the judgment was premature and otherwise erroneous. Held:

1. According to the Constitution of this state, the Supreme Court has no original jurisdiction, but is a court only for the trial and correction of errors of law from the superior courts and from certain city courts, in specified cases. Code, § 2-3005 (Const. art. 6, § 2, par. 5), and section 6-801.

2. It follows that this court has no jurisdiction to grant the writ of mandamus applied for in the present case. While the Supreme Court may aid a party by the writ of mandamus to bring to it his case from the lower court, as by issuing a writ to compel the judge to certify a bill of exceptions or to require the properofficers to perform their legal duties in reference to such proceeding, it is without any power or jurisdiction to require the judge of the lower court to issue a writ returnable before him for the purpose of trial.

3. It appears in this case that the judge of the superior court entered an order refusing to entertain the petition for the writ of coram nobis, and that no exception to that judgment was taken. The remedy of the petitioners, if any, would have...