Baker v. City of Atlanta, 18669
| Decision Date | 14 September 1954 |
| Docket Number | No. 18669,18669 |
| Citation | 83 S.E.2d 682,211 Ga. 34 |
| Parties | H. R. BAKER et al. v. CITY OF ATLANTA et al. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
F. L. Breen, Atlanta, for plaintiffs in error.
J. C. Savage, J. C. Murphy, J. M. B. Bloodworth, Ralph C. Jenkins, Henry L. Bowden, Martin McFarland, Atlanta, for defendants in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court.
H. R. Baker and fourteen other named persons filed in Fulton Superior Court a petition in their own behalf and in behalf of all others similarly situated, against the City of Atlanta, a municipal corporation, C. A. Page, F. H. Rainwater, and J. W. Van Hitch, composing the City Barber Board, in which it was alleged that plaintiffs were barbers, working in barber shops in the City of Atlanta, two of whom own and operate barber shops, and have property rights involved, and in which they sought to have the barbering ordinance of the City of Atlanta, known as sections 7.1 through 7.38 of the 1953 Code of the City of Atlanta, declared unconstitutional, null and void. It was recited in the bill of exceptions that 'F. R. Beard, one of the plaintiffs in the bill in equity originally, having been tried in the Municipal Court of the City of Atlanta, and also known as the Recorder's Court, and is, as a plaintiff, stricken by admission in judicio.' The prayers of the petition included one 'that the City of Atlanta, its officers and agents, and the defendant members of the Barber Board be permanently enjoined from enforcing and attempting to enforce said ordinance.' The exception here is to the judgment of the trial court sustaining the general demurrer of the defendants, based on the ground that the petition fails to set forth a cause of action against any of the defendants. Held:
1. The general rule is that 'Courts of equity will not by injunction prevent the institution of prosecutions for criminal offenses, whether the same be violations of state statutes or municipal ordinances; nor will they, upon a petition for an injunction of this nature, inquire into the constitutionality of a legislative act, or the validity to reasonableness of an ordinance making penal the act or acts for the doing of which prosecutions are threatened.' Paulk v. City of Sycamore, 104 Ga. 24(1), 30 S.E. 417, 41 L.R.A. 772. See also Powell v. Hartsfield, 190 Ga. 839, 11 S.E.2d 33.
2. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sentinel Offender Svcs., LLC v. Glover, s. S14A1033
...settled that a court may take judicial notice of its own records in the immediate case or proceedings before it.” Baker v. City of Atlanta, 211 Ga. 34, 83 S.E.2d 682 (1954) (quoting from Branch v. Branch, 194 Ga. 575, 577, 22 S.E.2d 124 (1942) ). As it appears from the record that the parti......
-
Graves v. State
...not evidence are simply inapplicable.3 See also Dept. of Revenue v. McCray, 215 Ga. 678, 113 S.E.2d 132 (1960); Baker v. City of Atlanta, 211 Ga. 34, 35(3), 83 S.E.2d 682 (1954); Woodruff v. Balkcom, 205 Ga. 445, 447(2), 53 S.E.2d 680 (1949); Roberts v. Roberts, 201 Ga. 357, 39 S.E.2d 749 (......
-
Sentinel Offender Svcs., LLC v. Glover, S14A1033
...settled that a court may take judicial notice of its own records in the immediatecase or proceedings before it." Baker v. City of Atlanta, 211 Ga. 34 (83 SE2d 682) (1954) (quoting from Branch v. Branch, 194 Ga. 575, 577 (22 SE2d 124) (1942)). As it appears from the record that the parties a......
-
Blease v. Blease
...and not this court, but jurisdiction is retained because of the necessity that we take judicial notice (see Baker v. City of Atlanta, 211 Ga. 34(3), 83 S.E.2d 682 (1954)) of the record in this court of the case of Blease v. Blease, 236 Ga. 525, 224 S.E.2d 377 (1976) in order to deal with th......