Stephenson v. Warren

Supreme Court of Georgia1904-02-13

119 Ga. 504

Summary · law.co

Holding. The city court of Moultrie lacks authority to hear and determine issues raised by counter-affidavits in eviction proceedings, as exclusive jurisdiction belongs to superior courts; upon receiving a counter-affidavit to a warrant, the serving officer must return the proceedings to the superior court for jury trial.

A city court judge in Moultrie possesses limited authority in eviction proceedings involving tenants holding over. While the judge may administer oaths, receive affidavits, and issue warrants to dispossess such tenants, the judge lacks power to resolve factual disputes that arise when a defendant files a counter-affidavit. The statute grants exclusive jurisdiction over contested eviction matters to superior courts. When a warrant faces a counter-affidavit challenge, the serving officer must transfer the case to the superior court of the relevant county, where a special jury will resolve the factual controversy as if an appeal had been filed.

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

Key issues

Jurisdiction of city court versus superior court in eviction cases
Authority to issue warrants for tenant holdover actions
Procedure when tenant files counter-affidavit to eviction warrant
Role of the serving officer in transferring contested proceedings

Procedural posture

The judgment of the lower court was appealed to the state supreme court.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

majority opinion

Turner, J.

1. The’ city court of Moultrie has no authority to hear and deter- , mine an issue formed by a counter-affidavit to a warrant issued against one as a tenant holding over. Acts of 1901, p. 136, sec. 2. Exclusive jurisdic- , tion over such a proceeding is, by statute, conferred upon the superior courts. Civil Code, §4816.

2. The judge of that city court has, however, under the express terms of section 12 of the act creating it, authority to administer oaths and take the necessary affidavits from persons entitled to apply for warrants to dispossess tenants holding over, as well as authority to issue such warrants.

3. It follows that where a warrant issued by the judge of that court against one in possession of land is met by a counter-affidavit, it is the duty of the officer,serving the warrant to “return the proceedings to the next superior court of the county where the land lies,” agreeably to the provisions of the ■section of the code above cited, in order that “the fact in. issue [may] be there tried by a special jury, as in case of appeal.”

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except Simmons, C. J., absent.