GA Code § 23-1-1 (2021)
2021 Georgia Code|Title 23 - Equity|Chapter 1 - General Provisions|§ 23-1-1. Equity Jurisdiction Vested in Superior Courts and State-Wide Business Court

 All equity jurisdiction shall be vested in the superior courts of the several counties and in the Georgia State-wide Business Court as provided in Code Section 15-5A-3.   (Laws 1799, Cobb's 1851 Digest, p. 467; Code 1863, § 3013; Code 1868, § 3025; Code 1873, § 3080; Code 1882, § 3080; Civil Code 1895, § 3921; Civil Code 1910, § 4518; Code 1933, § 37-101; Ga. L. 2019, p. 845, § 3-4/HB 239.)    The 2019 amendment,  effective May 7, 2019, added "and in the Georgia State-wide Business Court as provided in Code Section 15-5A-3" at the end of this Code section.   Cross references.   - Exercise of judicial power, Ga. Const. 1983, Art. VI, Sec. I, Para. IV.   Law reviews.   - For article on the 2019 amendment of this Code section, see 36 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 1 (2019).   JUDICIAL DECISIONS   Equity determined by allegations contained in petition.    - Whether an action is one at law or in equity is determined by the allegations of the petition and the nature of the relief prayed and not by the designation given to the action by the pleader. Griffin v. Securities Inv. Co., 181 Ga. 455, 182 S.E. 594 (1935).    Equity jurisdiction is conferred upon the superior courts and not upon the judges thereof, and judges sitting in vacation are not courts of equity. Humber v. Garrard, 205 Ga. 357, 53 S.E.2d 748 (1949).    Equity had jurisdiction to render decrees in open court authorizing the several trustees to contract for loans and secure the loans by deed conveying the trust property. Jackson v. Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. Co., 183 Ga. 659, 189 S.E. 243 (1936).    In an equitable proceeding, it is the general rule that all persons having a legal or equitable interest in the subject matter of the suit must be made parties; and no court should undertake to reform a written instrument in an essential matter, without having before it all the parties to be affected by the proposed reformation. American Fid. & Cas. Co. v. Elder, 189 Ga. 229, 5 S.E.2d 668 (1939).   Federal jurisdiction.   - Since an action to set aside award of year's support to widow for fraud could be brought in superior courts of the state, it might be brought in federal court, assuming that all other jurisdictional prerequisites had been satisfied. Dunaway v. Clark, 536 F. Supp. 664 (S.D. Ga. 1982).   State court had jurisdiction over unjust enrichment claim.    - State court had jurisdiction to give an award based on the equitable theory of unjust enrichment because the plaintiffs, the buyers of a sports bar, sought only damages against the sellers, not equitable relief. Lee v. Shim, 310 Ga. App. 725, 713 S.E.2d 906 (2011).    Cited in Watters v. Southern Brighton Mills, 168 Ga. 15, 147 S.E. 87 (1929); Lamb v. Lamb, 169 Ga. 567, 150 S.E. 817 (1929); Biddle v. Papa, 180 Ga. 468, 179 S.E. 357 (1935); McDowell v. McDowell, 68 Ga. App. 363, 22 S.E.2d 851 (1942); Rockefeller v. First Nat'l Bank, 213 Ga. 493, 100 S.E.2d 279 (1957); Miller v. New Amsterdam Cas. Co., 105 Ga. App. 174, 123 S.E.2d 717 (1961); Moody v. Mendenhall, 238 Ga. 689, 234 S.E.2d 905 (1977); Country Greens Village One Owners Ass'n v. Meyers, 158 Ga. App. 609, 281 S.E.2d 346 (1981); Southeast Serv. Corp. v. Savannah Teachers Props., 263 Ga. App. 513, 588 S.E.2d 310 (2003); Levenson v. Word, 294 Ga. App. 104, 668 S.E.2d 763 (2008).