Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

HOWARD, Administrator v. PATE.

DUCKWORTH, Chief Justice.

This intervention in a condemnation proceeding, where the land has been taken and the purchase money paid into court, seeks only to subject the funds to the intervenor's claim because of an alleged fraudulent conveyance of the land in question by intervenor's judgment-debtor to the person in whom title reposed when condemned. Thus the title to the land is not directly involved, but incidentally, which is not enough to give this court jurisdiction, nor does it otherwise come within this court's jurisdiction. Code Ann. § 2-3704 (Const. of 1945); Grant v. Oakey, 218 Ga. 723; Boswell v. Underwood, 217 Ga. 675 ( 124 S.E.2d 394), and cases cited therein. The allegations and prayers do not, under Code §§ 28-102, 28-103, and Durden v. Royster Guano Co., 158 Ga. 234 ( 123 S.E. 603), put the case within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

Transferred to the Court of Appeals. All the Justices concur.

SUBMITTED MARCH 11, 1963 — DECIDED MARCH 25, 1963.
Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

HOWARD v. PATE
(Mar 25, 1963)