Baker v. Rockdale County

• Decision Date: 13 November 1925
• Docket Number: 4784.
• Citation: 130 S.E. 684,161 Ga. 245
• Parties: BAKER v. ROCKDALE COUNTY.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

130 S.E. 684

161 Ga. 245

BAKER v. ROCKDALE COUNTY.

No. 4784.

Supreme Court of Georgia

November 13, 1925

Syllabus by Editorial Staff.

In view of Const. art. 7, § 7, par. 1, county commissioners were unauthorized to contract for loan (not to supply casual deficiencies of revenue) to be used to defray current expenses, though general design was to discharge notes given for loan from anticipated revenue of current year.

When facts on which county can borrow money are matters of public record, county commissioners cannot make conclusive recitals of facts, and lenders of money to county cannot rely on recitals in notes, but must search the records.

Where county is unauthorized to borrow money to meet casual deficiency in excess of one-fifth of 1 per cent. of assessed value of its taxable property, issue of notes in excess of such limit is void, since tax digest shows assessed valuation, especially where debt limit is fixed by Constitution.

Recitals in resolution and statement attached to note, given by county for loan, held sufficient to put purchaser of note on guard, making him chargeable with notice of illegality of loan, in view of Civ. Code 1910, § 4291.

Error from Superior Court, Rockdale County; John B. Hutcheson Judge.

Action by George Baker against Rockdale County. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.

Russell C.J., and Hill, J., dissenting.

C. C King, of Covington, and Erle B. Askew, of St. Petersburg, Fla., for plaintiff in error.

Jones, Park & Johnston, of Macon, and J. H. McCalla, of Conyers, for defendant in error.

Syllabus OPINION.

HINES J.

1. Article 7, § 7, par. 1, of the Constitution of this state is in part as follows:

"The debt hereafter incurred by any county, municipal corporation, or political division of this state, except as in this Constitution provided for, shall not exceed seven per centum of the assessed value of all the taxable property therein, and no such county, municipality, or division shall incur any new debt, except for a temporary loan or loans to supply casual deficiencies of revenue, not to exceed one-fifth of one per centum of the assessed value of taxable property therein, without the assent of two-thirds of the qualified voters thereof [voting] at an election for that purpose, to be held as may be prescribed by law."

See Civil Code 1910, § 6563; 10 Park's Code Supplement 1922, § 6563.

2. County commissioners have no authority to contract in behalf of a county for a loan of money (not to supply casual deficiencies of revenue) to be used in defraying current expenses, although the general design be to discharge the notes given for such loan from the anticipated revenue of the current year. Dent v. Cook, 45 Ga. 326; Wood v. Commissioners of Greene County, 60 Ga. 556; Hall v. County of Greene, 119 Ga. 253, 46 S.E. 69; Butts County v. Jackson Bkg. Co., 129 Ga. 801, 60 S.E. 149, 15 L.R.A. (N. S.) 567, 121 Am.St.Rep. 244; McCord v. City of Jackson, 135 Ga. 176, 69 S.E. 23; City of Marietta v. Dobbins, 150 Ga. 422, 104 S.E. 444.

3. When facts upon which a county can borrow money are not to be ascertained by the officers charged with the duty, but are matters of public record, no constitutional or legislative intent to authorize these officers to make conclusive recitals of such facts will be inferred, and lenders of money to the county cannot rely on recitals in notes given by the county, but to protect themselves must search the records which will reveal the truth. Dixon County v. Field, 111 U.S. 83, 4 S.Ct. 315, 28 L.Ed. 360; Sutliff v. Lake County, 147 U.S. 230, 13 S.Ct. 318, 37 L.Ed. 145; Commercial T. Co. v. Laurens County (D. C.) 267 F. 901.

4. The county having no authority to borrow money to meet a casual deficiency of revenue in excess of one-fifth of 1 per cent of the assessed value of the taxable property within its limits, an issue of notes in excess of such limit is void, since the tax digest of the county will show the assessed valuation. Buchanan v. Litchfield, 102 U.S. 278, 26 L.Ed. 138; Lake County v. Graham, 130 U.S. 674, 9 S.Ct. 654, 32 L.Ed. 1065; Lake County v. Rollins, 130 U.S. 662, 9 S.Ct. 651, 32 L.Ed. 1060; Doon Township v. Cummins, 142 U.S. 366, 12 S.Ct. 220, 35 L.Ed. 1044; Nesbit v. Riverside Independent Dist., 144 U.S. 610, 12 S.Ct. 746, 36 L.Ed. 562; 19 R.C.L. 1019, § 312. This is especially true where the debt limit is fixed by the...