Ragan v. Stand. Scale Co., 50 S.E. 951 (Ga. 1905). · Go Syfert
Search
Ragan v. Stand. Scale Co., 50 S.E. 951 (Ga. 1905). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
34 citation events across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Mathis v. Rowland, 67 S.E.2d 760 (Ga. 1951)
Treatment trajectory · 1905 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1905 1965 2026
How cited ↗
Cited for
123 Ga. at 16 cited at this page1 citing case
  • Mathis v. Rowland, 67 S.E.2d 760 (Ga. 1951).published
    Smith v. Ferrario, 105 Ga. 51, 53 ( 31 S. E. 38 ); Ragan v. Standard Scale Co., 123 Ga. 14, 16 ( 50 S. E. 951 ); King v. King, 203 Ga. 811, 817 ( 48 S. E. 2d, 465 , 2 A. L.
Other citing cases1 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
RAGAN
v.
STANDARD SCALE COMPANY
Supreme Court of Georgia.
May 12, 1905.
Published opinion
50 S.E. 951
1905 Ga. LEXIS 361
Charles E. Davis and McHenry & Maddox, for plaintiff, Dean & Dean, contra.
Lumpkin.
Cited by 19 opinions  |  Published
Lumpkin, J.

(After stating the facts.) The claimant in this case made an amendment to its claim, in which it sought affirmative equitable relief. The judge of the city court by his judgment sought to grant it. A city court in this State is without jurisdiction to grant such relief. English v. Thorn, 96 Ga. 557; Fowler v. Preferred Accident Insurance Co., 100 Ga. 330, 334; Moore v. Medlock, 101 Ga. 100; Hecht v. Snook & Austin Furniture Co., 114 Ga. 921. In the present case the parties appear to have proceeded before the judge of the city court by agreement. “Consent of parties, however, can not give a court jurisdiction of a subject-matter when it has nond by law; and when this court discovers from the record that the judgment has been rendered by a court having no jurisdiction of the subject-matter, and the case is brought here for review upon writ of error, this court will of its own motion reverse the judgment. If the judge has refused to entertain the motion, and that ruling has been excepted to and brought here for review, this court will, on motion or ex mero motu, dismiss the writ of error.” Smith v. Ferrario, 105 Ga. 51, 53, 54. The subrogation sought to be asserted was not of a purely legal character, such as may arise in favor of a surety who pays off in whole or in part a judgment or execution against his principal and has the fact of such payment duly entered. Civil Code, § 2986. The claimant desired to revive a cancelled mortgage, to assert equitable rights and obtain equitable relief; and the judge of the city court endeavored to mold his judgment accordingly. The amendment should have been stricken; and the judgment is reversed, with direction that this be done.

Judgment reversed with direction.

All the Jushees ■ concur, except Candler, J., absent.