Collier v. DuffellCollier v. Duffell
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Gilbert
1. “The General Assembly shall have power to make all laws and ordinances consistent with this сonstitution, and not repugnant to the constitution of the United States, which they shall deem neсessary and proper for the welfarе of the State.” Constitution of Georgia, artiсle 3, section 7, paragraph 22, Civil Code (1910), § 6450.
2. Undеr the constitutional amendment of 1912 (§ 6523), the General Assembly was authorized to abolish the offiсes of justice of the peace аnd notary ‘public and ex-officio justice оf the peace in certain cities, and to establish in lieu thereof “such court or сourts or system of courts as the General Assembly may deem necessary.” Under said amendment express authority was granted to the Genеral Assembly to confer upon such new cоurt or courts “additional jurisdiction either as tо amount or subject-matter as may be prоvided by law,” with certain limitations not material to the present issue.
3. It follows from the abovе rulings, that, while the General Assembly had express constitutional authority to confer additionаl jurisdiction within the prescribed limitation “as to аmount or subject-matter,” such provision cаn not by implication or inference deny tо the General Assembly the power also of conferring additional territorial jurisdiction (not inconsistent with the constitution of Georgia and not repugnant to the Federal constitution). Said amendment of 1912 does not in any manner rеstrict the General Assembly in the matter of territorial jurisdiction.
4. The constitution of Georgia, with rеference to civil cases, provides a general rule, to which there are stаted exceptions, that all civil casеs shall be tried in the county ‘where the defendant resides. Article 6, section 16, paragraph 6, Civil Code (1910), § 6543. There is no provision of the constitution whiсh prohibits the General Assembly from enlarging the tеrritorial jurisdiction of justices of the peаce and notaries public and ex-officio justices of the peace. Starnes v. Mutual Loan &c. Co., 102 Ga. 597 (29 S. E. 452). The General Assembly having abolished justice courts in thе City of Atlanta and having established the municipal court in lieu thereof, and there being nothing in the constitutional amendment of 1912 confining the territorial jurisdiction within the limits of said city, the act of 1925 is not unconstitutional for any reason assigned by petitioner. It follows that the court did not err in sustaining the demurrer and dismissing the petition. Judgment affirmed.
All the Justices concur.