State Highway Dept. v. Blalock, 37235

• Decision Date: 14 October 1958
• Docket Number: Nos. 1,2,No. 37235,37235,s. 1
• Citation: 106 S.E.2d 552,98 Ga.App. 630
• Parties: STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT v. Blanche G. BLALOCK
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

Page 552

106 S.E.2d 552

98 Ga.App. 630

STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT v. Blanche G. BLALOCK.

No. 37235.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, Division Nos. 1, 2.

Oct. 14, 1958.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 13, 1958.

Eugene Cook, Atty. Gen., Paul Miller, E. J. Summerour, Asst. Attys. Gen., Ariel V. Conlin, John E. Hogg, Deputy Asst. Attys. Gen., Harold Banke, Jonesboro, for plaintiff in error.

Allen Post, Atlanta, for defendant in error.

Bob Reinhardt, Tifton, T. M. Smith, Atlanta, for parties at interest, not parties to record.

Syllabus Opinion by the Court.

CARLISLE, Judge.

1. This court is cognizant of the application of the rule of stare decisis in that a later decision of the Supreme Court rendered by less than a full bench is not a binding precedent when in conflict with a prior full bench decision rendered by that court. Code § 6-1611. Nevertheless, where the Supreme Court, in the later case involving the identical point of law as involved in a case now before this court, in a decision reviewing prior authorities, either distinguished such authorities or expressly held that contrary rulings therein were obiter dictum, this court is bound by the ruling of the Supreme Court in the later case interpreting and construing such older authorities (Weaver v. Carter, 101 Ga. 206, 209, 28 S.E. 869), even though such interpretation and construction was made in a decision concurred in by less than a full bench, and this court cannot in a case involving the exact point of law decided in the aforesaid later Supreme Court decision do aught but follow said decision in ruling on the case now before it involving the same proposition of law. Accordingly, where in Woodside v. City of Atlanta, 214 Ga. 75, 103 S.E.2d 108, 110, the Supreme Court in a decision concurred in by four justices and from which three justices dissented held that, 'tender to the condemnees of the assessors' award of compensation for the property sought to be condemned, or payment of it into the registry of the court on their refusal to accept it, was a condition precedent to the condemnor's right to file and prosecute an appeal to a jury in the Superior Court,' and in so holding, extensively reviewed authorities relied on in a support of the contrary view and concluded in that opinion that such authorities did not authorize such a contrary view, either distinguishing the rulings in the older cases or holding that statements to the contrary therein were obiter dictum, such reling is binding on this court in the instant case where the right of the State Highway Department to prosecute an appeal to the jury in the superior court was questioned by the condemnee on the ground that the condemnor had not paid to the condemnee or tendered into court the amount of the award of the assessors. This presented the exact question as considered and passed on by the Supreme Court in the Woodside case, supra, for decision by the trial judge, and his ruling following the Woodside case must be affirmed.

2. The original condemnation proceeding in ...