Case Name: STOVALL v. KELLEY BROTHERS
Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Decision Date: 1911-01-24
Citations: 8 Ga. App. 550
Docket Number: 2520
Parties: STOVALL v. KELLEY BROTHERS.
Judges: 
Reporter: Georgia Appeals Reports
Volume: 8
Pages: 550–551

Head Matter:
2520.
STOVALL v. KELLEY BROTHERS.
1. The city court of Atlanta has jurisdiction of civil actions only when the principal sum involved exceeds $100; but where m a suit on an account more than $100 is claimed, the court has jurisdiction to proceed to an investigation and adjudication of how much is really due from the defendant to the plaintiff, unless the defendant by timely special plea (ordinarily to be filed at the first term) makes the defense that there are credits which should have been entered upon the account, and which would have reduced it below the sum of $100 if they had been so entered.
2. There was evidence authorizing the verdict, and no material error of law appears.
Decided January 24, 1911.
Complaint; from city court of Atlanta — Judge Reid. January 25, 1910.
T. C. Battle, Heyward & Garrett, for plaintiff in error.
James L. Key, contra.

Opinion:
Powell, J.
As to the point that the city court of Atlanta was without jurisdiction: petitioner claimed over $100; and, primarily, this made a case within the jurisdiction of the court. It is true that under the act of December 11, 1894 (Acts 1894, p. 209), the jurisdiction of the city,court of Atlanta is limited, as to this class of cases, to actions where the principal sum claimed exceeds $100, and the defendant is allowed to file a special plea setting up that because of credits which should have been entered, this principal sum due from the plaintiff to the defendant is less than $100, thereby ousting the court of jurisdiction, if the plea is sustained. See Acts 1894, p. 209. In this case no such plea was filed. The court, therefore, had jurisdiction to determine the amount due from the defendant to the plaintiff, even though on the final ascertainment of the facts it might have developed that the sum actually due was less than $100.
There was some evidence to support the verdict, and no material error of law appears. Judgment affirmed.