Jones v. Sikes
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Hines, J.
This was a claim to personal property. By amendment the claimant sought to set up an equitable estoppel. He did not seek any affirmative equitable relief; but he set up the facts alleged in this amendment defensively. In Arnold v. Water Power & Mining Co., 147 Ga. 91 ( 92 S. E. 889 ), this court held, that “Where a dispossessory warrant is sued out to evict a tenant, who alleges facts which are only defensive in character, and no equitable or affirmative relief is prayed, the action is a statutory one falling within the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals, and not within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.” In the amendment the claimant did not seek affirmative equitable relief. He pleaded the facts therein set out defensively. It follows from the above ruling, that the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction of this case. It is accordingly transferred to that court.
All the Justices eoncxir.
H. B. Kimbrough,, L. C. Anderson, and P. M. Anderson, for plaintiff in error. J. Saxton Daniel, contra.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 2 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.