Case Name: P. H. Hartman, plaintiff in error, vs. The Mayor and Council of Columbus, defendant in error
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Decision Date: 1872-01
Citations: 45 Ga. 96
Docket Number: 
Parties: P. H. Hartman, plaintiff in error, vs. The Mayor and Council of Columbus, defendant in error.
Judges: 
Reporter: Georgia Reports
Volume: 45
Pages: 96–97

Head Matter:
P. H. Hartman, plaintiff in error, vs. The Mayor and Council of Columbus, defendant in error.
(By two judges.) — Where two actions are brought by the same plaintiff against the same defendant, in a Magistrate's Court, at the same term, on several promissory notes given for the same consideration, at the same time, and payable to plaintiff, the defendant is entitled to have them consolidated: Provided, that when consolidated, the aggregate amount does not oust the Court of jurisdiction. (R.) 6th March, 1872.
Practice. Consolidating actions. Before Judge Johnson Muscogee Superior Court. May Term, 1871.
The facts are in the opinion.
H. L. Benning, for plaintiff in error,
cited 2 D. and E. R., 639; 1 Tidd’s Pr., 614; 3 Ch. Pr., 643.
Blanford & Crawford, for defendant,
cited Acts 1868, Justices jurisdiction, R. Code, section 3196.

Opinion:
Montgomery, Judge.
The Mayor and Council of Columbus brought two suits against the plaintiffs in error, in a Magistrate's Court, at the same term, the first on five promissory notes for $10 each, and the second on four — each of these also for $10 — the whole amounting to $90 — less than the jurisdictional limit of the Court. Defendant moved to consolidate the two cases, which motion the Court overruled, and the Superior Court, on certiorari, sustained the ruling.
Was the defendant entitled to have the cases consolidated? We think so. The hardship of having to bear the costs in many cases, where they might be reduced to one without detriment to the plaintiff, is well pointed out by Judge Harris, in The Manufacturers' Bank of Macon, vs. Goolsby, 35 Georgia Reports, 82.
The consolidation in that case was refused, only because it would oust the jurisdiction of the Court. Here no such re- suit would follow, and the Code, section 481, would seem to exclude the right of the plaintiff to bring several suits in a Magistrate's Court, unless the aggregate amount of the debts sued on, would be more than the sum over which the Court had jurisdiction. Our judgment is confined to cases in a Magistrate's Court.
Judgment reversed.