Western Union Tel. Co v. Jackson

• Decision Date: 23 March 1896
• Citation: 98 Ga. 207,25 S.E. 264
• Parties: WESTERN UNION TEL. CO. v. JACKSON.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

98 Ga. 207

25 S.E. 264

WESTERN UNION TEL. CO.

v.JACKSON.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

March 23, 1896.

Writs of Error from City Courts.Inasmuch as under paragraph 5, § 2, art. 6, of the constitution(Code, § 5133), writs of error to the supreme court lie only from the superior courts, the city courts of Atlanta and Savannah, and like courts established by law in other cities, writs of error do not lie from "city courts" established for counties upon the recommendation of grand juries under the provisions of the act of October 19, 1891, as amended by the act of December 23, 1892, for the reason that the courts put in operation under these acts, even if they are "like"courts, are not established in cities at all.These acts obviously contemplate the establishment of courts in counties in which there are no cities as well as counties in which there are cities, and the fact that there may be an incorporated city in a given county for which county such a court is established does not change the character of the court, or affect the class to which it belongs.Courts so established are good, statutory courts, but not the constitutional courts from which a writ of error lies.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error from city court, Spalding county; E. W. Beck, Judge.

Action by R. P. Jackson against the Western Union Telegraph Company.Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.Dismissed.

Dorsey, Brewster & Howell and H. M. Dorsey, for plaintiff in error.

Hammond & Cleveland, for defendant in error.

ATKINSON, J.This case is here upon a writ of error from the city court of Spalding county.That court was organized under the general law providing for the establishment of city courts in counties having a certain population, the act authorizing the establishment of such courts being found in the acts of 1890-91, p. 96, and the amendment thereto to be found in the Acts of 1892, p. 107.These acts provide that the powers, jurisdiction, officers, and mode of selecting them, of courts so established shall be the same as are now prescribed by the act creating the city court of Macon, which was approved August 14, 1885, and is to be found in the Acts of 1884-85, p. 470; thus extending the provisions of the act organizing the city court of Macon, in the respects indicated, to the courts organized under the act of 1890-91, as amended by the act of 1892, supra.The question is whether this court has jurisdiction to determine writs of error from city courts established under the provi sions of the general law above mentioned.In our consideration of this question we will take judicial cognizance of the fact that the city of Griffin is an incorporated city within, and is the county site of, the county of Spalding.The supreme court is a court of limited jurisdiction.SeeCarter v. Janes, 96 Ga. 280, 23 S. E. 201.It is expressly provided by the constitution of this state that the supreme court shall have no original jurisdiction, but shall be a court alone for the trial and correction of errors from the superior courts, and from the city courts of Atlanta and Savannah, and from such other like courts as may be hereafter established in other cities, and shall sit at the seat of government at such times in each year as shall be prescribed by law for the trial and determination of writs of error from said superior and city courts.Seeparagraph 5, § 2, art. 6(Code, § 5133).It will be seen that the first part of the paragraph of the constitution now under review deals exclusively with the jurisdiction of the supreme court It has in broad and comprehensive language denied to the court all original jurisdiction, and this denial makes it impossible for any cause to originate in this court, and this is immediately followed by the declaration enumerating and describing the subjects of jurisdiction in the supreme court, and expressly excluding from its jurisdiction those subjects not embraced in this enumeration or description.Upon this latter subject it will be observed that the language employed is, "but shall be a court alone for the trial and correction of errors from the superior courts, " and other courts there enumerated or described.It is thus made expressly a court for the trial and correction of errors from the courts enumerated or falling within the class of courts described by the constitution, and the use of the word "alone" further confines the jurisdiction of the supreme courts to the trial and correction of errors from those courts only.We think that the enumeration and classification by the constitution of the courts from which writs of error would lie to the supreme court was a denial of jurisdiction in the supreme court to determine writs of error from any courts other than those indicated; but, to prevent a reference of this subject to any rule of constitutional construction, the constitutional convention, by the use of the word "alone" in the connection in which it is there employed, set at rest all possible doubt as to its meaning.When the constitution of the state says that the jurisdiction of the supreme court shall extend alone to the determination of writs of error from a certain class of courts, this is an express denial to the legislature of the power to enlarge the jurisdiction of the court by extending it to others not embraced in the constitutional enumeration or classification.The court now under review was not one of the courts expressly named in the constitution.The only question, then, Is, does it fall within the general descriptive...