JONES v. THE STATE

Supreme Court of Georgia1940-07-13No. No. 13256

190 Ga. 654

Summary · law.co

Holding. The Supreme Court reversed the transfer and remanded the case to the Court of Appeals because the demurrer failed to properly raise a constitutional question within the Supreme Court's jurisdiction; a demurrer challenging a statute's constitutionality must explain how the statute violates specific constitutional provisions, not merely cite them.

Alice C. Jones was charged in city court with operating a tourist camp in Richmond County without permission from the county commissioners of roads and revenues, in violation of a 1937 Georgia statute applicable to counties with populations exceeding 57,000. Jones filed a demurrer challenging the constitutionality of the statute on multiple grounds, citing provisions of the Georgia Constitution and the U.S. Constitution protecting contracts and property rights. The trial court overruled the demurrer, the case proceeded to trial, and Jones was convicted. After conviction, the Court of Appeals transferred the case to the state Supreme Court, apparently based on the theory that a statute's constitutionality had been questioned.

The Supreme Court examined whether the demurrer properly raised a constitutional question. The court determined that the demurrer's ground challenging constitutionality was deficient because it merely asserted that the statute violated certain constitutional provisions without explaining how or in what manner those violations occurred. Under established precedent, a party seeking to raise a genuine constitutional challenge must demonstrate the specific ways in which the statute violates the constitution, not merely cite constitutional provisions. Because the demurrer failed to raise a proper constitutional question, the case fell outside the Supreme Court's jurisdiction.

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

Key issues

Sufficiency of a demurrer to raise constitutional questions
Jurisdictional requirements for Supreme Court review of constitutional challenges to statutes
Tourist camp licensing authority in counties exceeding 57,000 population

Procedural posture

The case was tried in Richmond County city court, resulted in a guilty verdict for the defendant, and was transferred from the Court of Appeals to the state Supreme Court on the theory that constitutionality of a statute was drawn in question.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

majority opinion

Bell, Justice.

By an accusation filed in the city court of Richmond County Mrs. Alice C. Jones was charged with the offense of a misdemeanor, for that she did on February 28, 1939, in Richmond County, Georgia, “then and there, by.herself, servants, and agents, for money and profit, establish, maintain, and operate a tourist camp outside the limits of an incorporated town or city in the County of Richmond and State of Georgia, which said County of Richmond has a population óf more than 57,000 according to the last Federal census. The said establishing, maintaining and operating of said tourist camp was done without securing the permission of the commissioners of roads and revenues of Richmond County, the authority in charge of said county, contrary to the laws of said State, the good order, peace, and dignity thereof.” The defendant filed a demurrer to the accusation, ground 5 of which was as follows: “That the act of 1937, page 624, which was House Bill No. 430 of the Georgia legislature of 1937, which act became effective on March 30, 1937, and which provides that one establishing, maintaining or operating a tourist camp in counties having a population of more than 57,000, and under which this deiendant is charged, is unconstitutional, for the following reasons: (a) Said act violates paragraph 2 of section 3 of article 1 of the constitution of the State of Georgia, which is section 6389 of Park’s Civil Code of 1910, which section provides that no law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be passed, (b) That said act violates paragraph 3 of section 1 of article 1 of the constitution of the State of Georgia, which is section 6359 of Park’s Civil Code of 1910, which provides that no person shall be deprived of property except by due process of law. (c) That said act violates paragraph 1 of section 10 of article 1 of the constitution of the United States, which is section 6652 of Park’s Code of 1910, which provides that no State shall pass any law impairing the obligation of contracts, (d) That said act violates paragraph 5 of section 3 of article 8, which is section 6688 of Park’s Code of 1910, which provides that no person shall be deprived of property without due process of law.”

The court overruled the demurrer, after which the case pro eeeded to trial and resulted in a verdict of guilty. The defendant’s motion for a new trial was overruled, and she excepted. The writ of error was made returnable to the Court of Appeals, but was transferred by that court to this court. The transfer was apparently made upon the theory that the constitutionality of a statute was drawn in question, as it is clear that the case does not otherwise come within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The only part of the record which might be considered as undertaking to raise any question as to the constitutionality of a statute was ground 5 of the demurrer and its subdivisions, as. quoted above. No statute was drawn in question by that ground of demurrer, for the reason that it did not show wherein the statute referred to violated the stated provisions of the constitution. Pace v. Goodson, 127 Ga. 211 (56 S. E. 363); Crapp v. State, 148 Ga. 150 (95 S. E. 993); Curtis v. Helen, 171 Ga. 256 (2 c) (155 S. E. 202); Jordan v. State, 172 Ga. 857 (159 S. E. 235); Williams v. McIntosh County, 179 Ga. 735, 742 (177 S. E. 248); Johns v. State, 180 Ga. 187 (3) (178 S. E. 707); Wright v. Cannon, 185 Ga. 363 (195 S. E. 168); Poole v. Arnold, 187 Ga. 734, 742 (1 b) (2 S. E. 2d, 83); Lovell v. Griffin, 303 U. S. 444 (58 Sup. Ct. 666, 82 L. ed. 949). The demurrer being insufficient, for the reason indicated, to raise a constitutional question such as would bring the case within the jurisdiction of this court, no decision is necessary as to whether in other respects it might have been sufficient for that purpose. Abel r. State, 190 Ga. 651, and cit. The Court of Appeals, and not the Supreme Court, has jurisdiction. The case must be

Transferred to Court of Appeals.

All the Justices concur.