Turk v. State Highway Dept., 25616
| Decision Date | 09 April 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 25616,25616 |
| Citation | 174 S.E.2d 791,226 Ga. 245 |
| Parties | L. N. TURK, Jr. v. STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Zachary, Hunter, Zachary & Bowden, John Calvin Hunter, Decatur, A. Mims Wilkinson, Jr., Atlanta, for appellant.
Herbert O. Edwards, Decatur, Arthur K. Bolton, Atty. Gen., Harold N. Hill, Jr., Exec. Asst. Atty. Gen., Richard L. Chambers, Asst. Atty. Gen., William B. Brown, E. J. Summerour, Deputy Asst. Atty. Gen., Atlanta, for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
This is an appeal from the judgment of the DeKalb Superior Court sustaining the condemnor's motion to dismiss the condemnee's notice of appeal to a jury and sustaining the condemnor's motion for a judgment on the pleadings and from the final judgment against the condemnor in the amount of $2,600. The sole basis for the appellant's contention that the Supreme Court has jurisdiction of the appeal is the first enumeration of error complaining of so much of the order and judgment of the trial court as overruled the condemnee's attack on the constitutionality of §§ 7 and 10 of the Act approved April 5, 1961, as amended (Ga.L.1961, p. 517 et seq.; Ga.L.1962, Ex.Sess., Sept., p. 37 et seq.; Code Ann. §§ 36-1307 and 36-1310) on the ground that such sections are repugnant to the due process and impartial and complete protection provision of the State and Federal Constitutions. This enumeration of error is based on the judgment overruling the condemnee's contention made in paragraph 4 of his response to the condemnor's motion to dismiss the notice of appeal of condemnee and for judgment on the pleadings. In that paragraph condemnee contended
1. It is fundamental that this court is a court alone for the trial and correction of errors of law, that it has no original jurisdiction, and that it will decide no question on appeal not clearly presented and passed upon by the trial court. The Constitution, Article VI, Section II, Paragraph IV (Code § 2-3704); Code § 24-3901(1); Jackson v. Baker, 207 Ga. 446, 448, 62 S.E.2d 162. Accordingly, where it is clear from the record before this court that no attack on the statute in question on the ground that it violates the provisions of the Federal Constitution was made in the trial court, such question, though sought to be asserted in the grounds of enumerated error and argued in the brief of counsel before this court, will not be passed upon.
2. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
North Georgia Finishing, Inc. v. Di-Chem, Inc.
...111 S.E.2d 44; Holmes v. State, 224 Ga. 553, 557, 163 S.E.2d 803; Widemon v. Burson, 224 Ga. 665, 164 S.E.2d 128; Turk v. State Highway Dept., 226 Ga. 245, 246, 174 S.E.2d 791. Nor does the record on appeal sufficiently identify the particular paragraph, section or article of the Federal or......
-
North Georgia Finishing, Inc. v. Di-Chem, Inc.
...would nowise affect the Act of the General Assembly from which the section of the Annotated Code was taken.' In Turk v. State Hwy. Dept., 226 Ga. 245, 246, 174 S.E.2d 791, the attack was made upon 'section 36-1307 Ga.Code Ann.' This court held that this designation was not See also, Morgan ......
-
Trapnell v. Smith
...in the grounds of enumerated error and argued in the brief of counsel before this court, will not be passed on.' Turk v. State Highway Dept., 226 Ga. 245(1), 174 S.E.2d 791. See also Harris v. State, 114 Ga. 436(3), 40 S.E. 315; Fleming v. Roberts, 114 Ga. 634(2), 40 S.E. 792; Carter v. Peo......
-
Security Management Co., Inc. v. King, 49538
...558, 163 S.E.2d 803; Widemon v. Burson, 224 Ga. 665, 164 S.E.2d 128; Cox v. Burson, 226 Ga. 13, 172 S.E.2d 406; Turk v. State Hwy. Dept., 226 Ga. 245, 246, 174 S.E.2d 791. Since the trial court refused to rule upon the motions, the constitutional issue is not raised within the ruling made i......