Kelly et al. vs. Jackson

Supreme Court of Georgia1881-03

67 Ga. 274

Summary · law.co

Holding. The judgment of the superior court dismissing the certiorari was reversed and the case remanded for the superior court to hear the certiorari petition on its merits.

The case involved a certiorari petition challenging a judgment from a special court for maritime cases. The petitioners argued the lower court lacked jurisdiction and that procedural requirements for the certiorari were not satisfied. The court addressed three main issues: whether the certiorari was timely filed, whether proper bond and cost certificates were provided, and whether the special court had authority to hear the case.

On timeliness, the court found no error in allowing the certiorari outside the standard twenty-four-hour window because the judge was unavailable on Sunday and the petition was presented as soon as reasonably possible. Regarding bond and costs, the court determined that the record contained sufficient evidence—an approved bond and a cost certificate both predating the writ—satisfying statutory requirements despite technical differences from an older law. The special maritime court was found to have proper jurisdiction, as it operates as a distinct tribunal not bound by ordinary session rules and is not subject to constitutional uniformity requirements that apply only to courts of the same grade and class.

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

Key issues

Timeliness of certiorari petition when judge unavailable within twenty-four-hour period
Sufficiency of bond and cost certificate compliance with statutory requirements
Jurisdiction of special maritime court and constitutional uniformity constraints

Procedural posture

The superior court dismissed a certiorari petition challenging a judgment from a special court for maritime cases, and the petitioners appealed.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

majority opinion

Jackson, Chief Justice.

There was no error in not dismissing the certiorari, because it was not allowed or presented within twenty-four hours from the rendition of the judgment. The judgment was rendered on Saturday. The next day, Sunday, the judge left Savannah for McIntosh court, where the petition was forwarded, presented and allowed as soon as the judge could be reached. Code, §4965.

The court did err in dismissing the certiorari on account of the want of a certificate that bond was given and costs paid under section 4054 of the Code. There was a certificate that costs were paid, and the bond itself, approved by the justice, appears of record, and both bear date before the writ of certiorari was granted. This complies with the Code, section 4054. The act codified in this section is more stringent, requiring a certificate as to the bond, as well as the costs ; but the bond itself, with approval thereof by the justice, is a substantial compliance even with thatold act of 1811. Cobb’s Digest, p. 523. The Code has, however, modified the old act alluded to, and the Code is the law now. This case is not within the principle ruled in Fuller vs. Arnold et ux , 64 Ga., 599, read in the light of the facts therein disclosed, and to understand and apply the principle announced in any case, it must be so read. There no bond and certificate were filed within the time specified in the statute, and no certificate or other evidence thereof appeared.

The court which tried this case was not a justice court, and the ruling of this court touching the times and places wherein those courts should be held monthly, is not applicable. It is a special court which may be held by the judge of the city court, or the justice of the peace, or other judicial officer named in the act, and when presided over by the judge of the city court, it is not the city court, nor when presided over by the justice of the peace is it the justice court. In either case it is a special court organized to hear and determine causes affecting seamen which require dis(patch. 16 Ga., 606. For the same reason it does not conflict with the uniformity clause of the constitution. Sup, to Code, §635. That constitutional provision confines the requisition of uniformity to “ the same grade or. class.” This court is not of the same grade or class, either as respects the court or the officer. It is not of the court, because it affects seamen only, and is limited in its jurisdiction; nor is it of the same grade as a justice court as respects the officer, because the judge of the city court may hold it.

It seems quite clear, therefore, that the constitution of 1877 does not have the effect of repealing it, and we are not aware of any law which repeals it. Therefore it is still the law, and the justice had the jurisdiction to try the case.

The superior court dismissed the certiorari on the ground that there was no certificate of bond and security, as required by law, and that judgment is reversed and the case remanded, that the certiorari may be tried on its merits by that court.

Judgment reversed.