From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Housing Auth. v. Curry Realty Co.

Supreme Court of Georgia
May 13, 1952
70 S.E.2d 749 (Ga. 1952)

Opinion

17862.

SUBMITTED MAY 12, 1952.

DECIDED MAY 13, 1952.

Condemnation. Before Judge Rowland. Laurens Superior Court. March 6, 1952.

Dawson Kea and Lester F. Watson, for plaintiff.

Emory L. Rowland, H. Dale Thompson and Joe W. Rowland, for defendant.


The Housing Authority of the City of Dublin, Georgia, instituted condemnation proceedings against certain property owned by Curry Realty Company. After an award by the assessors, an appeal to the superior court was entered and, on the trial of the appeal in that court, it was agreed that the only issue to be determined was the value of the land at the time it was condemned and taken. The condemnor, being dissatisfied with the amount of the verdict returned by the jury, filed a motion for a new trial, and the present bill of exceptions assigns error upon the judgment overruling that motion. Held:

The only issue on the trial being as to the value of the property sought to be acquired by the Housing Authority, and no other question being raised by the motion for a new trial which could give this court jurisdiction, the Court of Appeals, and not this court, has jurisdiction, and the case is accordingly transferred. City of Reynolds v. Carter, 159 Ga. 229 ( 125 S.E. 380); H. G. Hastings Co. v. Southern Natural Gas Corp., 173 Ga. 212 ( 159 S.E. 853).

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

No. 17862. SUBMITTED MAY 12, 1952 — DECIDED MAY 13, 1952.


Summaries of

Housing Auth. v. Curry Realty Co.

Supreme Court of Georgia
May 13, 1952
70 S.E.2d 749 (Ga. 1952)
Case details for

Housing Auth. v. Curry Realty Co.

Case Details

Full title:HOUSING AUTHORITY OF CITY OF DUBLIN v. CURRY REALTY COMPANY INC

Court:Supreme Court of Georgia

Date published: May 13, 1952

Citations

70 S.E.2d 749 (Ga. 1952)
70 S.E.2d 749

Citing Cases

Housing Authority of City of Calhoun v. Spink

The sole issue being as to the value of the property condemned, this is not a case "respecting title to land"…