Atkins v. Manning

Decision Date11 October 1949
Docket NumberNo. 16826.,16826.
Citation56 S.E.2d 260,206 Ga. 219
PartiesATKINS . v. MANNING, Solicitor General.
CourtGeorgia Supreme Court

Rehearing Denied Nov. 18, 1949.

Condemnation proceedings by James T. Manning, Solicitor General of the Blue Ridge Judicial District, against a Ford truck owned by Massey C. Atkins.

The Superior Court for Cobb County, Howell Brooke, J., directed a verdict for the petitioner, denied defendant's motion for new trial, and to review the judgment defendant brings error.

The Supreme Court, Duckworth, C. J., affirmed the judgment, holding that defendant's truck, illegally transporting liquor, was properly subjected to condemnation.

Syllabus by the Court.

The State law controlling and taxing alcoholic beverages empowers the Revenue Commissioner to promulgate rules and regulations to effectuate its administration and enforcement. The rule of the commissioner, requiring that distilled spirits being transported from a point outside of Georgia, through this State to another State be by common carrier only, accompanied by invoice or bill of lading showing that the shipper and the consignee are both authorized by the laws of the United States and the laws of their respective States to engage in the transaction, is a valid rule, which offends neither the State nor the Federal Constitution.

(a) The evidence here shows that the vehicle sought to be condemned was, at the time of its seizure, being used for transporting distilled spirits in violation of such rule. The verdict condemning the same was demanded by the evidence.

The State of Georgia, through James T. Manning, Solicitor General of the Blue Ridge Judicial Circuit, brought condemnation proceedings against one 1946 Ford truck, having a South Carolina license. A demurrer and an answer to said petition were filed, and, after a directed verdict for the petitioner, a motion for new trial, as amended, had been filed and overruled, a bill of exceptions was filed, alleging violation of both the State and Federal Constitutions.

On February 17, 1949, the county law enforcement officers of Cobb County, Georgia, stopped the vehicle upon U. S. Highway No. 78 in said county to check the driver's license. Finding that said vehicle was transporting forty cases of whisky, upon which no tax had been paid to the State of Georgia, and which was not traveling through the State in accordance with the regulations of the State Revenue Commissioner for interstate shipments, the officers took possession of the vehicle as contraband property. Condemnation proceedings were then filed.

The plaintiff in error alleges that the regulations of the revenue commissioner under which the property was condemned were in violation of the State constitution as an improper delegation of legislative authority; and also in violation of the commerce clause of the Federal Constitution.

Willingham, Cheney, Hicks & Edwards, Marietta, John W. Nesbitt, Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.

James T. Manning, Sol. Gen., Marietta, for defendant in error.

DUCKWORTH, Chief Justice (after stating the foregoing facts).

Since a determination of the validity of Rules 301 and 920, promulgated by the State Revenue Commissioner, will be decisive in this case, we proceed at once to a consideration and decision on that question. The legislative act here involved, Ga.L.1937-38, Ex.Sess., pp. 103, 108, Code, Ann.Supp. § 58-1022, makes the State Revenue Commissioner the administrator of the law, and empowers him to promulgate rulesto effectuate its administration and enforcement. But the rules must not be inconsistent with the legislative act or any State or Federal law, and are to be designed for the proper control of the "manufacture, sale, distribution, storage, or transportation of distilled spirits and alcohol". The law further provides that the violation of any such rule and regulation issued by the commissioner, under authority of law and in accord with its provisions, constitutes a misdemeanor and is punishable as such. Ga.L.1937-38, Ex.Sess., pp. 103, 121, Code Ann.Supp. §...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Redwine v. Schenley Industries
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • June 14, 1954
    ...of the commerce clause of the Constitution in order to allow States to burden it with regulatory laws, was held in Atkins v. Manning, 206 Ga. 219, 56 S.E.2d 260. See also Scott v. State, 187 Ga. 702(3), 704, 2 S.E.2d 65. But we are not here dealing with (a) the legality of the sales of whis......
  • Sanders v. Fulton County
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • March 12, 1965
    ...of illicit liquors, which may be brought either in the name of the Solicitor General, acting on behalf of the state, Atkins v. Manning, 206 Ga. 219, 56 S.E.2d 260, the solicitor of a city court, acting on behalf of the state, Mack v. Westbrook, 148 Ga. 690, 98 S.E. 339, or in the name of th......
  • Gunther v. Gillis
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • June 22, 1966
    ...on State departments enumerated in the Governor's executive order does not make them the subject of judicial notice. See Atkins v. Manning, 206 Ga. 219, 56 S.E.2d 260 holding that rules of the State Revenue Commissioner have the force and effect of law, although they are not the subject of ......
  • Publix-Lucas Theaters v. City of Brunswick
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • October 11, 1949
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT