Beckanstin v. Dougherty County Council of Architects

• Citation: 111 S.E.2d 361,215 Ga. 543
• Decision Date: 04 November 1959
• Docket Number: No. 20654,20654
• Parties: H. H. BECKANSTIN v. DOUGHERTY COUNTY COUNCIL OF ARCHITECTS, etc., et al.
• Court: Supreme Court of Georgia

Page 361

111 S.E.2d 361

215 Ga. 543

H. H. BECKANSTIN v. DOUGHERTY COUNTY COUNCIL OF ARCHITECTS, etc., et al.

No. 20654.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Nov. 4, 1959.

Grigsby H. Wotton, Wotton, Long & Jones, Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.

Eugene Cook, Atty. Gen., J. R. Parham, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendants in error.

Syllabus Opinion by the Court

HAWKINS, Justice.

This case comes to this court on certiorari to the Court of Appeals, that court having held, in Dougherty County Council of Architects, etc., v. Beckanstin, 100 Ga.App. 84, 110 S.E.2d 85, 86, that, 'Where, by the terms of Code (Ann.) § 84-320, the General Assembly reposed the power to revoke the certificate of a licentiate, in the State Board for Examination, Qualification and Registration of Architects, making such action by the board final and conclusive, the superior court is without power to issue to such board a writ of certiorari in a given case where the board has revoked such a certificate, in order to review the action of the board,' and in so holding having stated in division 1, page 87 of 110 S.E.2d 85, that 'Consequently, under the present state of the law upon this subject, a licentiate of the State Board for Examination, Qualification and Registration of Architects may not by appeal, or writ of certiorari, have the action of the board in revoking his license reviewed.' The applicant for certiorari contends that the ruling thus made by the Court of Appeals is contrary to law and contrary to the Constitution of the State of Georgia, Article VI, Section IV, Paragraph V (Code, Ann., § 2-3905), which provides that the Superior Courts 'shall have power to correct errors in inferior judiciatories by writ of certiorari.' Held:

1. By Code, § 84-320 it is provided that 'Proceedings for the revocation of a certificate [to practice architecture] shall be begun by filing written charges against the accused with the Board for the Examination and Registration of Architects through the Joint-Secretary, State Examining Boards. A time and place for the hearing of the charges shall be fixed by the said Board. * * * At the hearing the accused shall have the right to be represented by counsel, to introduce evidence, and to examine and cross-examine witnesses. The Joint-Secretary shall make a written report of the findings of the Board, which report shall be filed with the Secretary of State, and which shall be conclusive.' (Italics ours.) The Court of Appeals has erroneously construed the italicized words shown above to prohibit certiorari from a decision of the Board. We construe the word 'conclusive' as here used to imply termination or end of the matter decided, save for appellate review. Code, § 38-623 provides that 'A judgment shall be admissible between any parties to show the fact of the rendition thereof; between parties and privies it is conclusive as to the matter directly in issue, until reversed or set aside.' (Emphasis supplied.) See also Code, § 110-501. While there is no provision in Chapter 84-3 of the Code expressly providing for a review of a decision of the Board for the Examination and Registration of Architects, yet the general law is that 'The writ of certiorari shall lie for the correction of errors committed by justices of the peace, corporation courts or councils, or any inferior judicatory or any persons exercising judicial powers' (Code, § 19-101), and our Constitution itself provides, in Article VI, Section IV, Paragraph V (Code, Ann., § 2-3905), that the Superior Courts 'shall have power to correct errors in inferior judicatories by writ of certiorari.'

2. Counsel for the defendant in certiorari contend that the act of the Board in revoking Beckanstin's license was an administrative act--not a judicial act--and consequently the licentiate would not have a legal right to have the act of the Board reviewed by the Superior Court. We do not agree with this contention, since Code, § 84-320 provides for 'filing written charges against the accused,' the fixing of a time and place for a hearing of the charges, personal service, service through counsel, or by publication, and at the hearing the accused 'shall have the right to be represented by counsel, to...