History
  • No items yet
midpage
Wade v. Hopper
76 S.E.2d 403
Ga.
1953
Check Treatment

*1 in plaintiffs for Wesley envigan Thomas, J. J and W. Glenn Edenfield, contra. Ronald F. Adams and Newell evi- to find from Justice. The was authorized Head, possession adverse dence that the defendant had been in Broadwater, property from J. Jan- since the date of his deed T. uary 1939, January 4, recorded 1939. His deed 2, which was amplification dated October from T. J. Broadwater was purported convey April 6, and recorded These deeds for defendant, except entire interest in the land reservation of a life estate in T. Broadwater. There is noth- J.

ing testimony that he did to show purchase good in belief that his faith under the grantor had title to the entire interest in the land.

The verdict trial by authorized and the evidence, was in overruling court did not err for motion new trial. Judgment All except Atkinson, the Justices concur, affirmed. P. J., Hopper.

Wade brought Georgia’s Non- Justice. The instant case a suit Wyatt, Act, 1937, p. 732, resident Motorist L. amended L. Ga. as Ga. p. 305, Code, Supp., § A verdict was re- codified as Ann. 68-803. plaintiff below, defendant turned favor of the exceptions Appeals, assigning carried his bill of error pendente rulings on a motion certain lite trial. this court new The Court of transferred the case to Supreme béing as a case within the Court because was statute the State Code, Ann., § See 2-3704. Held: 1. Plaintiff in error here made two contentions below special plea plea in bar to the effect that Court of Houston had no 1947, p. 305, amending It is first contended that L. Ga. L. Ga. p. 732, specified provi- is unconstitutional because it violates certain ways. sions of the in certain Constitution of The relevant portion act, supra (p. 734), of the 1937 as “Be it further reads follows: having enacted that all courts counties now actions, diction tort actions and criminal shall arising all such nonresident users actions under this Act.” This court Lloyd held in Adams 46), that a suit under the above act could be amended In the act of against a provide a suit a resident the venue of county where the accident non-resident defendant was either plaintiff, or the the residence occurred de- venue of a suit a non-resident .is fendant in which the the view In is unconstitutional. amendment which it is first contended *2 supra, act, not is constitutionality case, of the we take of this the gives supra, act which The of is drawn into act bring in the right persons injured suit highway to accidents to involved Georgia becomes who a motorist courts of highways The using of this State. in a vehicular accident while right supra, non-residents purport to this of not to extend act does right anyone under else, that non-residents have but that assumes supra, venue act, to restrict intended the act of 1937. The 1947 is county in which suits, plaintiffs, of non-resident case the instant below in If the accident occurred. Georgia, any right it under the bring is to this case has at all suit Lloyd Adams 1937,supra, and, of this court of decision act under the supra, suit v. venue of such Co. Therefore, without any the 1937 act is properly regard act, in Houston supra, the 1947 suit to County, though it also the in this even is constitutionality of the follows, which the since, question under the supra, even of not act is jurisdiction prior law, of has of Houston Court (188 See, connection, Dorsey Clark, 183 in this 338). constitutionality this E. The S. attack give not this State that is not involved in the does case diction. intended to 2. It is then “not contended that the act plaintiff’s apply and does such as involved in apply, not to actions petition matter, parties are non-residents in this of whom between both “permit Georgia . . and jurisdiction ... courts to take over his and his proceeding, contrary would be Article and contravention “abridge XIV .” would United States Constitution and privileges guaranteed by and immunities XIV said Article law, guaranteed process to him said be him due allegations do Article XIV of These the United States Constitution.” attempt constitutionality not to attack the this State. law of simply alleged that, It is exercise the courts of case, deprived in this be of certain constitutional will guaranteed rights al- States Such United Constitution. legations do not make case that of this is within the Hemmings, court. See Atlanta & West Point R. 192 Ga. 537). ques- Since of no law drawn into of this State is case, why tion in the instant and since there is no other reason Appeals error, court has the writ of the Court not this court has of this case. Appeals. concur, except All the .Justices

Transferred Duckworth, J., dissents, Atkinson, J., C. who P. Argued May No. 18225. June 1953 Decided Miller, Miller & Miller, in Nunn & Altman Martin, Grant, Snow & contra. Duckworth, Justice, dissenting. Chief I dissent ground that I think that, while a decision constitution- ality 1947 amendment necessary to a decision in case, yet, since that question raised, constitutional been has it is for this court and not the Court of to decide a decision can be deciding made without the constitutional ques- tion. v. State, Burke E. 2d, S.

Whitfield v. The State. *3 Hawkins, Justice. murder, Rufus Whitfield was indicted for at the No- term, 1950, vember convicted, and was tried and a recommenda- with mercy, tion of term, 1952, at the November of Burke Court. To overruling excepts. his motion for a new trial he Held: While, under the evidence and the statement of the defendant to person effect that you killed threatened “to dam blow over that store,” and “twisted going get something around like he was out pocket,” jury might found that the defendant killed acting deceased while under the fears of a man reasonable that his danger life felony or that a was about to be committed deceased, justified, and was therefore verdict was demanded, but the was authorized to find that the facts surrounding killing circumstances were sufficient to excite such man, only fears of a reasonable and that the defendant acted from provocation by Fudge words used to him killed. State, (1) 2d, 259); State, 190 Ga. 340 E.S. Bivins v. verdict, general The evidence authorized the grounds of the motion for new trial are without merit. complain Grounds 1 and of the amended motion for new trial following charge jury: you jury, “Gentlemen of the if should find that the accused named in this indictment killed deceased indictment, presume named in this the homicide contrary appears, was malicious until the unless the evidence adduced justification, mitigation, excuse, the State shows it should appear not so from the evidence of the it would devolve justification, mitigation, to show such or excuse.” The charge complained principles here of is in accord with announced

Case Details

Case Name: Wade v. Hopper
Court Name: Supreme Court of Georgia
Date Published: Jun 8, 1953
Citation: 76 S.E.2d 403
Docket Number: 18225
Court Abbreviation: Ga.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.