Willey v. Bowden

• Decision Date: 20 January 1914
• Docket Number: (No. 5292.)
• Citation: 14 Ga.App. 379,80 S.E. 910
• Parties: WILLEY v. BOWDEN.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

80 S.E. 910

14 Ga.App. 379

WILLEY

v.BOWDEN.

(No. 5292.)

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Jan. 20, 1914.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 4, 1914.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

1. Appeal and Error (§ 750*)—Assignment of Error—Overruling of Certiorari.

A mere general assignment of error upon a judgment overruling a certiorari is not sufficient to authorize a ruling upon the question whether the court erred in not taxing the costs against the defendant in certiorari, after having directed that a small sum be written off from the verdict in his favor.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 3074-3083; Dec. Dig. § 750.*]

2. Appeal and Error (§ 19*)—Decisions Reviewable—Trifling Mistake.

It would seem that the sum of nine cents is so trifling and insignificant as to come within the maxim, "De minimis non curat lex, " and that a litigant is not entitled to use the processes of a reviewing court for the purpose of having corrected an error of such insignificance.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 63-80; Dec. Dig. § 19.*]

Error from Superior Court, Fulton County; Geo. L. Bell, Judge.

Action by J. F. Bowden against A. E. Willey. From a judgment overruling certiorari, defendant brings error. Affirmed.

Morris Macks, of Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.

B. L. Milling, of Atlanta, for defendant in error.

POTTLE, J. [2] This was a certiorari case, in which the plaintiff in certiorari complained of a verdict against him in the sum of $23.84. In the account attached to the summons in the justice's court the defendant in certiorari claimed the sum of $23.84, but the bill of particulars attached to the account showed an indebtedness of $23.75. Upon consideration of the certiorari the judge of the superior court, on motion of counsel for the defendant in certiorari, wrote off nine cents from the verdict, and passed the following order: "The within certiorari coming on to be heard, after hearing same, certiorari is overruled and judgment against plaintiff in certiorari for costs." The assignment of error in the bill of exceptions is in the following language: "To which judgment of the court the petitioner then and there excepted, now excepts, and assigns the same as error." There was no merit in the certiorari. The evidence was directly conflicting, and the judge of the superior court did not abuse his discretion in overruling the certiorari. The point chiefly relied on in this court is that the judge should have taxed the costs of the certiorari against the defendant in certiorari. The judge had the right to write off the nine cents excess. It would seem that this trifling sum ought to come within the maxim, "De minimis non curat lex, " and that the plaintiff ought not to be allowed touse the processes of the court to get relief from such an insignificant sum. Chenery v. Stevens, 97 Mass. 82; Agens v. Newark, 35 N. J. Law, 168; Spencer v. Champion, 9 Conn. 536; Slaughter v. Bank, 109 Ala. 158,, 19 South....