Case ID: ga_43/html/0360-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Warner, Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

E. M. McDonald & Company, plaintiff in error, vs. H. G. Feagin, sheriff, defendant in error.
    1. Under the Constitution of 18C8, the Superior Court has concurrent jurisdiction with the Justices’ Courts in all civil cases when the amount of the debt is less than $100 00.
    2. By the provisions of the Act of 1870, when an execution has been issued by a Justice of the Peace to enforce a factor’s lien for a sum less than $100 00, the same may be levied by any sheriff of this State, or bailiff, on the property of the defendant subject to such lieu, and when placed in the hands of a sheriff he may be ruled in the Superior Court for his neglect of duty in failing to execute the same.
    Jurisdiction of Superior Court. Factors’ Lien. Before Judge Harrell. Stewart Superior Court. April Term, 1871.
    Upon affidavit made by McDonald & Company, factors and commission merchants, under section 1977, of the Revised Code, that one Harris owed them $90 00, for which they had a lien on his crop of 1870, the Justice of the Peace issued a “ lien fi. fa.” for said sum, against said crop, directed to “all singular, the sheriffs of said State.” This fi.fa. was handed to the sheriff, he failed to make the money and was ruled. He moved to dismiss the rule, because the amount being less than $100 00, the Justice had no right to direct the fi.fa. as aforesaid, no sheriff had a right to levy it, and the Superior Court had no jurisdiction in the premises. The Court dismissed the rule on said grounds, and that is assigned as error.
    James Kiddoo, for plaintiff in error.
    Beall & Tucker, for defendant.
   Warner, Judge.

1. This was a rule against the sheriff, calling on him to show cause why he had not made the money on certain distress-warrants placed in his hands, issued by a Justice of the Peace, to enforce a factor’s lien under the 1977th section of the Code, the amount of each being less than $100 00. The Court refused to grant the rule against the sheriff, on the ground that the Superior Court had no jurisdiction to rule the sheriff on such claims. Under the Constitution, the Superior Court has concurrent jurisdiction with the Justices’ Courts in all civil cases where the amount of the debt claimed is less than $100 00.

2. By the provisions of the Act of 1870, when an execution has been issued by a Justice of the Peace to enforce a factor’s lien for a sum less than $100 00, the same may be levied by any sheriff of this State, or bailiff, on the property of the defendant subject to such lien; and when placed in the hands of the sheriff, he may be ruled in the Superior Court for his neglect of duty in failing to execute the same.

Judgment reversed.