Scott v. Aaron, A96A0043
| Citation | 471 S.E.2d 55,221 Ga.App. 254 |
| Decision Date | 03 May 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. A96A0043,A96A0043 |
| Parties | SCOTT v. AARON. |
| Court | United States Court of Appeals (Georgia) |
Allen W. Bodiford, Martin C. Jones, Jonesboro, for appellant.
Howard T. Aaron, pro se.
Plaintiff Aaron filed this action in the magistrate court alleging that defendant Scott was indebted to him due to damage to a truck. Defendant answered and filed a counterclaim. After a trial before the magistrate, a judgment in favor of plaintiff was entered.
Defendant appealed to the state court where on April 5, 1995, an order was entered which stated in part: The word "appeal" and the preceding hyphen appear to have been handwritten while the remainder of the language of the order apparently originated from a rubber stamp. The order charged costs on the plaintiff.
On July 11, 1995, an order was entered which stated that the earlier order was a dismissal of only the appeal, and maintained that the dismissal of the appeal returned the case to the magistrate court in the same posture it had been prior to the appeal to the state court.
Defendant's application for discretionary appeal was granted in order that we might consider several allegations of error with respect to the order entered July 11, 1995. In this case, the merits of defendant's enumerations of error are closely interwoven with issues concerning our own jurisdiction. Held:
First, we must note the posture of the case in the state court. An appeal from the magistrate court to the state court is a de novo appeal. OCGA § 15-10-41(b)(1). Upon a de novo appeal, the state court is to Knowles v. Knowles, 125 Ga.App. 642, 645(1), 188 S.E.2d 800. Once a de novo appeal from a magistrate court in proper form is taken to a state or superior court, there is no statutory provision for the remand of the case or for reinstatement of the judgment of the magistrate court. Thus, Thomas v. Bartlett, 142 Ga.App. 694, 237 S.E.2d 7.
Turning now to the construction of the April 5, 1995, order, we note that in the absence of the handwritten word "appeal" at the end of the order, there could be no doubt that the order was a dismissal of the entire action pending in the state court. If the addition of the handwritten word creates any ambiguity, by suggesting that only a dismissal of the appeal was intended, it must be resolved in favor of the construction which will render the judgment legal rather than illegal. Clark v. Bd. of Dental Examiners, etc., 240 Ga. 289, 294(5), 240 S.E.2d 250.
Thus, we construe the order of April 5, 1995, as being a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Great W. Cas. Co. v. Diversified Transp. Servs.
...the issue anew and pass original judgment on the questions involved as if there hadbeen no previous trial.'" Scott v. Aaron, 221 Ga. App. 254, 254, 471 S.E.2d 55, 56 (1996) (quoting Knowles v. Knowles, 125 Ga. App. 642, 645(1), 188 S.E.2d 800, 803 (1972)); O.C.G.A. § 15-10-41(b)(1). Further......
-
Stamps v. Nelson
...second enumeration of error to be frivolous, and therefore, the motion for sanctions is denied. 2. Compare Scott v. Aaron, 221 Ga.App. 254, 254-255, 471 S.E.2d 55 (1996) ("Once a de novo appeal from a magistrate court in proper form is taken to a state or superior court, there is no statuto......
-
Long v. Greenwood Homes, Inc.
...issue anew and pass original judgments on the questions involved as if there had been no previous trial.' [Cit.]." Scott v. Aaron, 221 Ga.App. 254, 471 S.E.2d 55 (1996). "[T]he magistrate court's judgment has no bearing on the merits of the main claim" (Howe v. Roberts, 259 Ga. 617(2), 385 ......
-
Jessup v. Jessup
...710 S.E.2d 867 (2011). 4. OCGA §§ 5–3–29; 15–10–41(b)(1). 5. OCGA § 5–3–29. 6. (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Scott v. Aaron, 221 Ga.App. 254, 471 S.E.2d 55 (1996). See also Long v. Greenwood Homes, 285 Ga. 560, 562, 679 S.E.2d 712 (2009) (On appeal to the superior court from a judgmen......