Richmond Concrete Products Co. v. Ward, s. 19547

• Decision Date: 05 December 1956
• Docket Number: 19548,Nos. 19547,s. 19547
• Citation: 95 S.E.2d 677,212 Ga. 773
• Parties: RICHMOND CONCRETE PRODUCTS COMPANY, Inc. v. Mrs. Ocie Anderson WARD. Mrs. Ocie Anderson WARD v. RICHMOND CONCRETE PRODUCTS COMPANY, Inc.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

Page 677

95 S.E.2d 677

212 Ga. 773

RICHMOND CONCRETE PRODUCTS COMPANY, Inc. v. Mrs. Ocie Anderson WARD.

Mrs. Ocie Anderson WARD v. RICHMOND CONCRETE PRODUCTS COMPANY, Inc.

Nos. 19547, 19548.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Dec. 5, 1956.

Syllabus by the Court.

Since the record does not properly present for decision any constitutional question or any other question over which the Supreme Court has jurisdiction, the writs of error which were transferred to this court by the Court of Appeals must be returned to that court for decision.

Fulcher, Fulcher & Hagler, Augusta, Stevens & Stevens, Thomson, for plaintiff in error.

Jack D. Evans, Randall Evans, Jr., Thomson, George Fryhofer, Waynesboro, for defendant in error.

CANDLER, Justice.

This litigation arose when Mrs. Ocie Anderson Ward filed a suit for damages in the Superior Court of McDuffie County against Richmond Concrete Products Company, Inc., and Albert L. Gay. So far as need be stated, the petition alleges that the plaintiff was permanently injured in consequence of specified acts of negligence committed by the defendants. All substantial allegations of the petition were denied by the answer filed thereto. On February 9, 1956, the plaintiff filed with the clerk of the court in which the suit was pending 18 interrogatories to be answered by the president of the defendant company. A motion to reject them was made by the defendant company, and the trial judge rejected them on grounds 2 and 4, which are as follows: '2. Defendant moves to reject plaintiff's interrogatories on the ground that Chapter 38-12 of the 1933 Code of the State of Georgia is unconstitutional insofar as it attempts to penalize corporations for failure of its officers to answer interrogatories, or to sue out commissions directed to themselves, being unconstitutional in that it amounts to a deprivation of property without due process of law, thus violating the fourteenth amendment to the U. S. Constitution and Article 1 [Section 1], paragraph 3 of the Constitution of the State of Georgia. * * * 4. Defendant moves to reject plaintiff's interrogatories because the plaintiff has failed to comply with the laws in regard thereto.' The case resulted in a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $15,000. An amended motion for new trial which the defendant company made was denied and the movant sued out a writ of error to the Court of Appeals, assigning error on that judgment. The plaintiff in a coss-bill of exceptions assigned error on the judgment rejecting her interrogatories, on a judgment approving the brief of evidence, and on a judgment refusing to dismiss the defendant's motion for new trial. The Court of Appeals transferred the two writs of error to this court for decision.

These cases present for decision no question over which the Supreme Court has jurisdiction unless ground 4 of the defendant's motion to reject the plaintiff's interrogatories raises a constitutional question. As shown by the above statement of facts, the defendant company contends that Chapter 38-12 of the Code, insofar as it attempts to penalize corporations for failure of their officers to answer interrogatories, or to sue out commissions directed to themselves, offends stated provisions of the Federal Constitution and the Constitution of this State. Chapter 38-12 of our Code is a codification of three acts passed by the legislature, one in 1847, Ga.L.1847, p. 465, another in 1889, Ga.L.1889, p. 87, and the third in 1853, Ga.L.1853-4, p. 51. Article 1, section 4, paragraph 2 of the Constitution of 1945 provides: 'Legislative acts in violation of this Constitution, or the Constitution of the United States, are void, and the Judiciary shall so declare them.' Code (Ann.) § 2-402.

In order to raise a question as to the constitutionality of a 'law', at least three things must be shown: (1) the statute or the particular part or parts of the statute which the party would challenge must be...