Thompson v. State

Decision Date09 May 1945
Docket Number15136.
Citation33 S.E.2d 903,199 Ga. 250
PartiesTHOMPSON v. STATE.
CourtGeorgia Supreme Court

Robert B. Blackburn and H. A. Allen, both of Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.

E E. Andrews, Sol Gen., Durwood T. Pye, and E. A. Stephens, all of Atlanta, for defendant in error.

Syllabus Opinion by the Court

WYATT Justice.

Thompson was convicted in Fulton superior court of the offense of cheating and swindling. A judgment overruling his motion for new trial was reversed by the Court of Appeals but a rehearing was granted on a motion filed by the State and the Court of Appeals then rendered a decision affirming the action of the lower court. Thompson v. State, 67 Ga.App. 240, 19 S.E.2d 777. Subsequently, Thompson was disbarred from the practice of law in Georgia by an ex parte order of a judge of the superior court of Fulton County, on the ground that Thompson had been convicted of an offense involving moral turpitude. Thompson moved that the judgment of disbarment be set aside on the ground, among others, that the final judgment of the Court of Appeals was void because its first judgment amounted to an acquittal, and the final judgment violated the provisions of the State and Federal Constitutions prohibiting double jeopardy; and the further ground that the judgment of disbarment was entered ex parte and without notice to the defendant, and consequently was void in that it violated the dueprocess clause of the State Constitution. Held:

The Supreme Court has jurisdiction 'in all cases that involve the construction of the Constitution of the State of Georgia or of the United States.' Const. Art. 6, § 2, par. 5 Code, § 2-3005. But 'jurisdiction is not vested in the Supreme Court merely because it is contended that an action or judgment is or would be contrary to some provision of the constitution.' Head v. Edgar Bros. Co., 187 Ga. 409, 410, 200 S.E. 792. 'The words 'construction of the Constitution,' etc., as here employed, contemplate construction where the meaning of some provision of the Constitution is directly in question, and is doubtful by force of its own terms or under the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States or of the Supreme Court of Georgia, and the provision of the Constitution in which they are employed is not to be construed as denying to the Court of Appeals jurisdiction of cases which involve mere application of unquestioned and unambiguous provisions of the Constitution...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Woodside v. City of Atlanta, 19906
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • 7 Marzo 1958
    ...or the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States. Gulf Paving Co. v. City of Atlanta, 149 Ga. 114, 99 S.E. 374; Thompson v. State, 199 Ga. 250, 33 S.E.2d 903, and citations. In the instant case, the motion to dismiss the condemnor's appeal to a jury in the superior court was based......
  • McGill v. State, 17930
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • 15 Julio 1952
    ...200 S.E. 792; Western Union Telegraph Co. v. King, 188 Ga. 95, 2 S.E.2d 909; Gaston v. Keehn, 195 Ga. 559, 24 S.E.2d 675; Thompson v. State, 199 Ga. 250, 33 S.E.2d 903; Loomis v. State, 203 Ga. 394, 47 S.E.2d Transferred to the Court of Appeals. All the Justices concur, except ATKINSON, P. ......
  • Dade County v. State
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • 5 Septiembre 1946
    ...Hodges v. Seaboard Savings & Loan Association, 186 Ga. 845, 199 S.E. 105; White v. State, 196 Ga. 847, 27 S.E.2d 695; Thompson v. State, 199 Ga. 250, 33 S.E.2d 903. Jurisdiction is not vested in the Supreme Court because it contended that a judgment of confirmation and validation would be c......
  • Haber v. Fulton County
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • 8 Octubre 1971
    ...See in this connection Head v. Edgar Bros. Co., 187 Ga. 409, 200 S.E. 792; Jarvis v. State, 197 Ga. 704, 30 S.E.2d 484; Thompson v. State, 199 Ga. 250, 33 S.E.2d 903. However, the question of sovereign immunity has been decided adversely to the appellant by the Supreme Court of this state i......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT