Rucker v. Stark
| Decision Date | 13 January 1953 |
| Docket Number | No. 18040,18040 |
| Citation | 74 S.E.2d 74,209 Ga. 496 |
| Parties | RUCKER et al., for use, etc. v. STARK, Sol. Gen. et al. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Brannon & Brannon, of Gainesville, J. B. G. Logan, of Cornelia, Abit Nix, of Athens, for plaintiff in error.
Allison & Pittard, of Lawrenceville, E. C. Stark, of Commerce, Joseph D. Quillian, of Winder, Wheeler, Robinson & Thurmond, of Gainesville, Kimzey & Kimzey, Herbert B. Kimzey and Hamilton Kimzey, of Cornelia, J. N. Rainey, of Winder, for defendant in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court.
The Commissioners of Roads and Revenues, of Banks County, Georgia, brought their petition for rule against the solicitorgeneral, the clerk of the superior court, and an ex-sheriff of the county, to require them to pay over to the county treasurer certain funds alleged to be in their hands arising from fines, forfeitures, and condemnation proceedings, which it is alleged the county is entitled to recover. The original petition alleged that it was brought under Code, § 24-206 et seq. In the briefs for the plaintiffs in error it is insisted that they have a right to proceed under the provisions of Code Ann.Supp. § 27-2922 et seq. The exception here is to a judgment sustaining a general demurrer to the petition. Held:
While Code, § 24-211 provides that in making distribution of money in a rule instituted under that Chapter the court shall proceed upon equitable principles, and while Code Ann.Supp. § 27-2924 provides that a proceeding under that Chapter 'shall be in the nature of an equitable proceeding and be governed by all established rules and maxims of equity', the petition in the instant case contains no allegations showing any right in the plaintiffs to any equitable relief, and prays for none, but merely seeks a judgment against the respondents requiring them to pay over to the county treasurer certain sums of money alleged to be in their hands to which the county is entitled. It is a statutory rule against the named officers in which neither the pleadings nor the prayers thereof call for equitable relief, and is not a case of which this court has jurisdiction. Accordingly, it is transferred to the Court of Appeals. Elmore v. Southern Bank & Trust Co., 150 Ga. 811, 105 S.E. 474; Alsabrook v. Prudential Insurance Co., 174 Ga. 637, 163 S.E. 706; Atlanta Coach Co. v. Simmons, 181 Ga. 67, 181 S.E. 762; Robinson v. Lindsey, 184 Ga. 684, 192 S.E. 910; Regents of the University System of Georgia v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gay v. Lewis
...reason assigned, and under such decision as well as the decision of the Supreme Court when such case was before that court (Rucker v. Stark, 209 Ga. 496, 74 S.E.2d 74) and the authorities there cited, it became the duty of the trial court, under equitable principles, to make distribution of......
-
Gay v. Lewis, 20554
...is sought in either the petition or answer, but only a money judgment, and no case for an equitable accounting is made out. Rucker v. Stark, 209 Ga. 496, 74 S.E.2d 74, is a case similar in all material respects to the instant case. There it was held that the case was not an equitable one, a......
-
Banks County v. Stark
...Court on the theory that it was an equity case, and was transferred by the Supreme Court to this Court. See Rucker v. Stark, 209 Ga. 496, 74 S.E.2d 74. (case No. 18040). Brannon & Brannon, Gainesville, J. B. G. Logan, Homer, Abit Nix, Athens, for plaintiff in Wheeler, Robinson & Thurmond, G......
-
Columbus Plumbing, Heating & Mill Supply Co. v. Home Federal Sav. and Loan Ass'n
...S.E. 579; Avant v. Hartridge, 174 Ga. 278, 162 S.E. 524; Alsabrook v. Prudential Insurance Co., 174 Ga. 637, 163 S.E. 706; Rucker v. Stark, 209 Ga. 496, 74 S.E.2d 74. It is thus evident that in some instances a claim case can, by the pleadings and prayer, be converted into an equitable proc......