
    3529.
    Morton v. City of Rome.
    Decided January 15, 1912.
    Rehearing denied March 2, 1912.
    Certiorari; from Floyd superior court — Judge Maddox.
    May 37, 1911.
    
      Henry Wallcer, for plaintiff in error. Max Meyerliardt; contra.
    ON MOTION ROR REHEARING.
    Hill, C. J. The ruling embodied in the first paragraph of the decision conclusively decides this ease and renders unnecessary a discussion of the other questions raised.
    In one of the grounds of the petition for certiorari it is insisted that the recorder’s court of the city of Rome does not exist, having been abolished on August 10, 1909. In this view of the case it was entirely immaterial, in the consideration of the certiorari by the judge of the superior court, whether the charter of the City of East Rome still exists or has been repealed. It is strenuously insisted by counsel for the plaintiff in error that the act which sought to include the territory embraced in the City of East Rome within the corporate limits of Rome was ineffectual for that purpose, because the legislature, six days after the passage of that act, passed an act amending the charter of East Rome; and it is also insisted that the assumption that the charter of East Rome has been repealed, in the opinion of the Supreme Court in Ivey v. Borne, 139 Ga. 386 (58 S. E. 853), is mere obiter, because the question was not directly presented or involved, and we are asked to certify this question to .the Supreme Court. Under the terms of the constitutional amendment creating this court, we are not permitted to uselessly certify questions to the Supreme Court. It is only when an answer to the certified question is material to the proper determination of the cause that we are permitted to certify questions for instructions. Since the Supreme Court decided in Bass v. Milledgeville, 133 Ga. 177 (50 S. E. 59), that the writ of certiorari can not be used to bring in question the legal existence of the court to which the writ is directed, the judge of the superior court was necessarily compelled to refuse to sanction the writ of certiorari. The application for rehearing is denied.
   Hill, C. J.

1. “ The writ of certiorari can not be used to bring in question the legal existence of the court to which the writ is directed.” Bass v. Milledgeville, 122 Ga. 177 (50 S. E. 59).

2. There wras no error in refusing to sanction the application for the writ of certiorari. Judgment affirmed.  