Nichols v. Floyd County

• Citation: 47 S.E.2d 163
• Decision Date: 18 March 1948
• Docket Number: No. 31899.,31899.
• Parties: NICHOLS. v. FLOYD COUNTY.
• Court: United States Court of Appeals (Georgia)

47 S.E.2d 163

NICHOLS.

v.FLOYD COUNTY.

No. 31899.

Court of Appeals of Georgia,

Division No. 2.

March 18, 1948.

Rehearing Denied March 31, 1948.

On Motion for Rehearing

Error from City Court of Floyd County; Jas. F. Kelly, Judge.

Proceeding by Floyd County against H. E. Nichols to recover overcharges allegedly paid to defendant as court reporter of the Superior Court of Floyd County. To review the judgment, defendant brings error.

Judgment reversed.

Graham Wright and Leon Covington, both of Rome, for plaintiff in error.

Maddox & Maddox, James Maddox and H. J. Fulbright, all of Rome, for defendant in error.

Syllabus Opinion by the Court.

GARDNER, Judge.

1. The subject-matter of the instant case has been the basis of three cases formerly appealed to the Supreme Court. Walden v. Nichols, 201 Ga. 568, 40 S.E.2d 644; Floyd County v. Nichols et al. (Nichols v. Floyd County et al.), 201 Ga. 575, 577, 40 S.E.2d 648; and Walden v. Smith et al. (Floyd County v. Smith), 45 S.E.2d 660, 661, decided by the Supreme Court December 1, 1947. It will be observed by reference to those cases that the subject-matter in those cases and in the instant case brings into question compensation of the court reporter of the Superior Court of Floyd County. So far as the instant case is concerned, Floyd County brought a petition to recover from the court reporter of Floyd County several thousand dollars which are alleged to be overcharges. The petition reveals that the judge of the-Superior Court of Floyd County certified to the charges which were contained in orders presented by the courtreporter, and the amounts were paid to the court reporter by Floyd County. The instant case was brought in the City Court of Floyd County in two counts to recover from the court reporter these alleged overcharges. There was filed on behalf of the court reporter general and special demurrers to each of the counts. After the filing of these demurrers the county filed an amendment purporting to meet the special demurrers and set forth specifically the items alleged to be overcharges. In the amendment a new count, known as the third count, was added. This third count went more specifically into the items of the alleged overcharges. The bill of exceptions recites: "Be it remembered that on December 1, 1947, plaintiff filed and there was allowed by the court an amendment to its original petition, and the original general and special demurrers was insisted upon to the petition as amended. The court thereupon entered an order in words and figures as follows, to-wit: 'The plaintiff having amended its petition, the within demurrer is overruled. This December 1, 1947. [Signed] James F. Kelley, J. C. C. R. F. C "

It will thus be seen that the only question for this court to here determine is whether the court erred in overruling the general demurrers to the petition as amended. We think it did. It is quite interesting to study the last opinion of the Supreme Court in which that court deals with the previous decisions of the Supreme Court concerning the subject-matter. In the First Division of the last opinion of the Supreme Court, after calling attention to the previous decisions of the Supreme Court, it is said: " * * * Construing the cases together, that an order of the superior court judge approving a bill for reporter's services in excess of $2500 limitation was not conclusive * * *. Assuming the correctness of this decision [meaning the previous opinion of the Supreme Court], the rule as thus announced will not be extended so as to cover the facts of the instant case. We do not construe the rulings in the cases just cited to mean that the provisions of the Code, § 24-3005, as above quoted, do not expressly and in terms rec ognize that the judges of the superior courts of this State have the inherent power and authority to incur and order paid, without further order, all contingent expenses, including the compensation of court reporter. * * *" (Italics ours.) Further on and in conclusion, the Supreme Court said in the last case before it: "The judge appears to have included in his approval of compensation certain work thus done by the person assisting the reporter, and in doing so his order became a judgment by a court of competent jurisdiction, and not being void on its face cannot be collaterally attacked. See Vol. 23, Words and Phrases, Perm.Ed., page 156, citing the Indiana case of Etzold v. Board of Commissioners of Huntington County, Ind.App., 141 N.E. 617, 620, holding that just such an approval by the judge is a judgment of court and not subject to collateral attack. Whether such a question could be properly raised and an attack made on the judgment in the instant case by a motion to vacate or modify the order of the judge is not a question which is presented by the record before us, but see in this connection Vol. 44, Words and Phrases, Perm.Ed., page 364, citing Kelly v. People, 115 111. 5S3, 590, 4 N.E. 644, 645, 56 Am.Rep. 184, in which it was said, 'There is a distinction between "void" and "erroneous", as used with reference to acts from a judicial body, the general rule being that, where the body has jurisdiction of the subject-matter and of the person affected, its judgment in the case will not be void, though it may be erroneous. If the judgment is merely erroneous, it can be attacked, and the error corrected only by appeal or by a direct proceeding to set it aside, while if it be absolutely void it is a nullity from the beginning, and may be treated as such without further proceedings to have such nullity judicially declared.' " Thus it is that the Supreme Court has specifically and definitely held that the certificate of the judge of the superior court approving bills for compensation to the court reporter is a judgment of that court and can not be collaterally attacked. It is therefore conclusively clear that the instant petition which was filed in...