Melton v. Jenkins
| Decision Date | 20 February 1935 |
| Docket Number | 23891. |
| Citation | 178 S.E. 754,50 Ga.App. 615 |
| Parties | MELTON v. JENKINS et al. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by Editorial Staff.
"Jurisdiction of subject-matter" is power to deal with general abstract question, to hear particular facts in any case relating to such question, and to determine whether they are sufficient to invoke exercise of power, and is not confined to cases in which particular facts constitute good cause of action, but includes every issue within scope of general power vested in court to deal with abstract question.
Prosecution in good faith of proceeding resulting in judgment adjudicating defendant in contempt and committing him held not to make litigant or his attorney guilty of false imprisonment, where court had jurisdiction of subject-matter, including jurisdiction to render judgment adjudicating defendant in contempt and committing him notwithstanding court exceeded its jurisdiction in rendering such judgment in particular case (Civ. Code 1910, § 4448).
Prosecution in court of ordinary of proceeding by attachment for contempt to collect money which defendant had been ordered by another court to pay over to administrator, resulting in adjudication of contempt and commitment of defendant, held not to make administrator or his attorney liable for false imprisonment, notwithstanding ordinary exceeded jurisdiction in adjudicating particular defendant guilty of contempt and administrator or attorney was actuated by malice and knew that defendant was insolvent (Civ. Code 1910, §§ 4073, 4074, 4448, 4644, 4790, 4819, 4825).
Error from Superior Court, Putnam County; James B. Park, Judge.
Petition by W. E. Melton against R. C. Jenkins and others. To review a judgment sustaining a general demurrer to his petition plaintiff brings error.
Affirmed.
M. F Adams and E. J. Summerour, Jr., both of Eatonton, for plaintiff in error.
S. T. Wingfield, Jr., of Eatonton, M. W. Lewis, of Greensboro, and R. C. Jenkins and D. D. Veal, both of Eatonton, for defendants in error.
Syllabus OPINION.
1. 17 Am. & Eng. Enc. L. (2d) p. 1060, note 4. See Foltz v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. (C.C.A.) 60 F. 316; Cooper v. Reynolds, 10 Wall. (77 U.S. ) 308, 316, 19 L.Ed. 931.
2. Where a court has jurisdiction of the subject-matter, including as such jurisdiction to render a judgment adjudicating the defendant in contempt of court and committing him to imprisonment, but where, in the particular case, the court in the judgment rendered may have exceeded its jurisdiction by the rendition of a judgment adjudicating the defendant in contempt and ordering him to jail, a litigant or his attorney, who in good faith prosecutes the suit and invokes the ruling and judgment of the court, is not, where the defendant is afterwards, in the proceedings, by a judgment of the court adjudicated in contempt and committed to jail, guilty of false imprisonment. Civil Code 1910,§ 4448; Calhoun v. Little, 106 Ga. 336, 341, 32 S.E. 86, 43 L.R.A. 630, 71 Am.St.Rep. 254; Foltz v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. (C.C.A.) 60 F. 316; Booth v. Kurrus, 55 N. J. Law, 370, 26 A. 1013; Gifford v. Wiggins, 50 Minn. 401, 52 N.W. 904, 18 L.R.A. 356.
3. A court of ordinary has jurisdiction of matters pertaining to the estates of deceased persons, jurisdiction over administrators, jurisdiction to compel administrators to account for the assets of an estate in their possession or custody, and jurisdiction in such cases to attach and punish for contempt. Civil Code 1910, §§ 4819, 4825, 4644, 4073, 4074, 4790. In a suit brought in the court of ordinary by an administrator to recover of another person residing in the county assets alleged to be in his possession...
To continue reading
Request your trial