Case ID: ga-app_22/html/0504-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Pee Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

8949, 8950.
    Arnold v. Water Power Mining Company; and vice versa.
    
    Decided July 12, 1918.
    Eviction; from Lumpkin superior court—Judge J. B. Jones. October 18, 1916.
    1. The motion to which'the decision refers in paragraph 1 is a motion to strike the ease from the docket of the Court of Appeal?, on the ground that, "the case not having been disposed of at the first or second term after the writ of error was received by the Supreme Court,” from which it was transferred to the Court of Appeals, "it stands affirmed under the constitution;” citing art. 6, sec. 2, par. 6 (Civil Code of 1910, § 6503); amendment creating Court of Appeals (§ 6506); amendment changing jurisdiction of these courts (Park’s Ann. Code, Supp. 1917, §§ 6502, 6506); Arnold v. Water Power and Mining Co., 147 Ga. 91; AtIcins Nat. BanJc v. Harmon, 19 Ga. App. 657; Barnhart v. Atlanta 
      
      & West Point R. Co., 133 Ga. 59. The bill of exceptions was filed* in the Supreme Court on October 31, 1916, and the case was argued there during the October term (on January 15, 1917); and, by a decision rendered at the March term, 1917, that court decided that it had no jurisdiction of the ease, and that the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction; and the case was accordingly transferred to the Court of Appeals (147 Ga. 91). In-this motion it was contended that the Supreme Court lost jurisdiction and the Court of Appeals acquired jurisdiction of the case immediately on the ratification of the amendment to the constitution, changing the jurisdiction of these courts.
   Pee Curiam.

1. The motion to strike is without merit.

2. The court did not err in overruling the demurrers to the defendant’s pleas.

3. The evidence being in material conflict, and the verdict not being demanded, the court erred in directing a verdict.

Judgment reversed on the main hill of exceptions; affirmed on the cross-hill.

Wade, O. J., and Jenkirts and Luke, JJ., concur.

2. The nature of the defense referred to in paragraph 2 of the decision is indicated in the report of this case in 147 Ga. 91. The plaintiff demurred orally to an amendment to the defendaiit’s counter-affidavit, in which this defense was set up; and by cross-bill of exceptions the plaintiff assigned error on the overruling of the demurrer.

3. The court directed a verdict finding the issue in favor of the plaintiff, and finding $909.98 as rent; to which defendant excepted.'

(Certiorari to review this decision was granted by the Supreme Court.)

II. H. Perry, R. II. Baker, for Arnold.

O. J. Lilly, W. A. Charters, contra.