Supreme Court empowered to review contempt of mandamus actions.

- A proceeding for contempt in violation of a mandamus absolute is so connected with the mandamus that a writ of error (now notice of appeal) to review a judgment therein should be treated as a case involving an extraordinary remedy within the constitutional provision conferring jurisdiction upon the Supreme Court. Settle v. McWhorter, 203 Ga. 93, 45 S.E.2d 210 (1947).

Court of Appeals lacking in jurisdiction.

- Where petitioners brought mandamus seeking to require judge to certify a bill of exceptions (now notice of appeal), and the judgment complained of is one wherein the Supreme Court and not the Court of Appeals would have jurisdiction of an appeal in that such judgment ordered, among other things, title to land transferred by deed and a petition seeking an injunction dismissed, the petition for writ of mandamus must be dismissed since the Court of Appeals was without authority either to pass on the merits of the petition or to transfer such petition to the Supreme Court. Scott v. Hubert, 99 Ga. App. 784, 109 S.E.2d 614 (1959).

Cited in Bradley v. Shelton, 189 Ga. 696, 7 S.E.2d 261 (1940); Nichols v. Hampton, 198 Ga. 327, 31 S.E.2d 659 (1944); Bankers Life & Cas. Co. v. Cravey, 209 Ga. 274, 71 S.E.2d 659 (1952); Banks County v. Stark, 88 Ga. App. 368, 77 S.E.2d 33 (1953); Jackson Elec. Membership Corp. v. Mathews, 210 Ga. 171, 78 S.E.2d 514 (1953); City of Dalton v. Smith, 158 Ga. App. 356, 280 S.E.2d 138 (1981).

Am. Jur. 2d.

- 5 Am. Jur. 2d, Appeal and Error, § 693 et seq. 52 Am. Jur. 2d, Mandamus, §§ 479, 480.

C.J.S.

- 55 C.J.S., Mandamus, § 366. 74 C.J.S., Quo Warranto, § 89 et seq.