MULHERIN v. NEELY et al., executors

Supreme Court of Georgia1927-10-14No. No. 5835

165 Ga. 113

Summary · law.co

Holding. The case presents a legal cause of action, not an equitable one, and therefore the Court of Appeals rather than this court has jurisdiction to review it; the case is transferred to the Court of Appeals.

Mulherin sued the executors of R. C. Neely's estate to recover approximately $32,000 in accounts. Neely had operated farms using sharecroppers and arranged for a company he controlled to supply the croppers with necessities. Though the accounts were recorded in the croppers' names on the company's books, Mulherin alleged they actually represented Neely's debt. After the company was declared bankrupt and its assets sold, Mulherin brought suit against Neely's executors. In his original petition, Mulherin sought a monetary judgment for the full amount owed. He later amended his petition to request additional relief and invoked the court's equitable powers to protect his rights and provide complete relief.

The trial court dismissed the case by sustaining the executors' demurrer. The central question on appeal concerns whether this court or the Court of Appeals has proper jurisdiction. The controlling principle is that whether a case is one of law or equity depends on the actual facts alleged and the relief sought—not on how the plaintiff labels the action or what equitable language appears in the prayer for relief. Because Mulherin's allegations describe a straightforward claim for money owed, the case presents a legal rather than an equitable cause of action, even though he invoked equitable jurisdiction.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether a court has jurisdiction when a plaintiff invokes equitable powers without alleging facts supporting equitable relief
Whether the nature of a claim is determined by the plaintiff's designation or prayer for relief, or by the actual facts and relief needed
Whether accounts charged to sharecroppers but allegedly owed by the farm operator himself support an equitable claim

Procedural posture

The trial court sustained the executors' demurrer to Mulherin's amended petition, and Mulherin appealed by writ of error.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

majority opinion

Hines, J.

Mulherin brought suit against the executors of R. C. Neely Sr. In his petition he made these allegations: Neely owned and operated various farms containing 16,000 acres. He worked these farms with croppers, who were unable to supply themselves with the necessaries of life while working the farms and making crops thereon for Neely as share croppers. Neely agreed to furnish them the necessary supplies to enable them to work and make such crops for him. He did not make these advances directly, but procured the R. C. Neely Company, of which he was president, stockholder, and general manager, to make them, and agreed to pay that company for all supplies furnished by it to his croppers. As a matter of convenience to Neely, and to save additional bookkeeping, these supplies were charged upon the books of that company to these croppers in their names, each cropper being charged with the supplies furnished to him; but all these supplies were sold to Neely, and he agreed to pay for them to the Neely Company. This company was adjudged a bankrupt, and a trustee was duly appointed to take charge of its assets for the benefit of its creditors. The trustee, under order of the bankrupt court, sold all the accounts standing in the name of these croppers. These accounts amount in the aggregate to $31,988.77. Mulherin prayed judgment against the executors of Neely for this amount. By an amendment to his petition Mulherin prayed “for such other or further relief as the nature of the case may require, and to effectuate such relief [the] equity jurisdiction of said court is invoked to protect rights of plaintiff and to afford complete relief.” To the petition the executors demurred. The trial judge sustained the demurrer, and Mulherin excepted.

Has this court jurisdiction of the writ of error brought to review this judgment? If the petition makes a case in equity, this court has jurisdiction. If it does not make such case, the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction. Whether a petition sets forth an equitable or a legal cause of action depends to some extent upon the character of the relief sought; and where, under the facts stated in a petition, the plaintiffs are entitled to either legal or equitable relief, the question, whether the pleader alleged a cause of action founded upon legal or equitable principles will be determined by the nature of the prayers. Steed v. Savage, 115 Ga. 97 (41 S. E. 272). If the petition sets forth no state of facts which entitle the pleader to relief upon equitable principles, he can not, of course, proceed in equity. Copeland v. Cheney, 116 Ga. 685 (43 S. E. 59). In his petition as originally drawn the plaintiff sought to recover judgment against the defendant executors for the principal sum of $31,988.77, with interest thereon from November 1, 1921, which he claimed to be due him on various open accounts for advances made to the testator, or his croppers, and which were charged on the books of the company making such advances, to these croppers, but that the accounts were in fact against the testator. The plaintiff amended his petition by praying for “such other or further relief as the nature of the case may require, and, to effectuate such relief, equity jurisdiction of” the court “is invoked to protect rights of plaintiff and to afford complete relief.”

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. City of Albany v. Cameron & Barkley Co., 121 Ga. 794 (49 S. E. 798); Taylor Lumber Co. v. Clark Lumber Co., 159 Ga. 393 (125 S. E. 844). If the averments of the petition do not make a case in equity, prayers for equitable relief would not make the case one in equity. The prayer for general relief and the invocation of the powers of a court of equity to grant such relief, to protect the rights of the plaintiff, and to afford to the plaintiff complete relief, in the absence of averments which show that the plaintiff is entitled to equitable relief, do not make the case one in equity. Burress v. Montgomery, 148 Ga. 548 (97 S. E. 538). Under the averments of the petition, if it set forth any cause of action, it was one at law, and not in equity; and consequently the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction to review this ease, and not this court; and the case is transferred to that court.

All the Justices concur.