Court Opinion

ID: 9675130
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:42:46.029677+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:31.675711
License: Public Domain

Ed. F. McFaddin, Associate Justice, dissenting. My dissent is along the same line as that taken by Chief Justice Harris. 1. I am of the opinion that equity jurisdiction cannot be invoked by appellees since they should have resisted the claim in the County Court and appealed to the Circuit Court from any decision adverse to their views. 2. Furthermore, I am of the opinion that this Court should not “reform” the present case to treat it as a declaratory judgment proceeding. Sometimes it is permissible to so “reform” cases, but this is not such a case. 3. Finally, I do not understand the majority opinion as saying that a claim such as this $50 item can never be allowed if the Legislature should pass a law (like Act 331 of 1935 or Act 44 of 1927), authorizing County Courts to pay such a claim as the $50 item here involved. I make this observation because I am reasonably confident that the Legislature will pass such an act when its attention has been called to the holding of the majority in this case.