Opinion
17427.
SUBMITTED MARCH 12, 1951.
DECIDED APRIL 10, 1951.
Petition for injunction, etc. Before Judge E. R. Smith. Berrien Superior Court. January 13, 1951.
L. J. Courson and Gibson Maddox, for plaintiff.
Fred Belcher, Ben T. Willoughby, and McCall Griffis, for defendant.
1. Where the equitable relief sought has been eliminated on or before the trial, and the sole question for determination by the jury is one of damages, the Supreme Court is without jurisdiction of the writ of error. Brightwell v. Oglethorpe Telephone Co., 176 Ga. 65 ( 166 S.E. 646); Henley v. Colonial Stages South, 184 Ga. 445 ( 191 S.E. 445); Bartlett v. Walker, 189 Ga. 154 ( 5 S.E.2d 373); Gilbert Hotel v. Black, 192 Ga. 641 ( 16 S.E.2d 435); Swinson v. Jones, 198 Ga. 327 ( 31 S.E.2d 592).
2. When title to land is not directly, but only incidentally involved, the Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction of the writ of error under the provisions of the Constitution, art. 6, sec. 2, par. 4 (Code, Ann., § 2-3704), conferring upon the Supreme Court jurisdiction "in all cases respecting title to land." Colley v. Atlanta West Point Railroad Co., 156 Ga. 43 ( 118 S.E. 712); Radcliffe v. Jones, 174 Ga. 324 ( 162 S.E. 679); Lewis v. Fry, 194 Ga. 842 ( 22 S.E.2d 817).
3. Under the foregoing rules the writ of error is
Transferred to the Court of Appeals. All the Justices concur.
No. 17427. SUBMITTED MARCH 12, 1951 — DECIDED APRIL 10, 1951.
The prayers of the plaintiff's petition were for injunction and the recovery of damages alleged to have been sustained by reason of trespasses of the defendant and his livestock upon the lands of the plaintiff. A temporary restraining order was granted. The defendant by his answer denied the material allegations of the petition, and prayed that the restraining order be dissolved and the plaintiff's prayers for damages be denied. Upon the trial the court charged the jury that "the question of injunction has been eliminated, and will not be under consideration by you, the sole question being as to whether she [the plaintiff] is entitled to damages." The court at the conclusion of his charge instructed the jury as to the form of its verdict, and under this instruction the jury was limited to the sole question of damages.