Boyles v. Steine, 24607
| Decision Date | 20 June 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 24607,24607 |
| Citation | 224 Ga. 392,162 S.E.2d 324 |
| Parties | James W. BOYLES v. M. Harry STEINE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
Properly construed the provisions of the Act approved February 8, 1955 (Ga.L.1955, pp. 2120, 2122) amending the charter of the City of Augusta limiting the right of one who has served two full terms on the City Council of Augusta from succeeding himself until after the lapse of 3 years after the expiration of his second term does not bar him from offering for election and serving as a Councilman from the same ward in another post, and the trial court did not err in rendering a summary judgment in favor of the defendant in this quo warranto proceeding and in holding that the defendant was eligible to be elected and to take office as Councilman from the 8th Ward, Post 2, of the City of Augusta, notwithstanding three years had not elapsed from the expiration of his second term as Councilman from the 8th Ward, Post 1.
Congdon & Williams, William P. Congdon, W. Barry Williams, Curtis R. Richardson, Augusta, for appellant.
D. Field Yow, Henry J. Heffernan, Harris, Chance & McCracken, Henry T. Chance, Augusta, for appellee.
This is a quo warranto proceeding in which the appellant seeks to test the eligibility of the appellee to hold the office of Member of the City Council of Augusta, Georgia. The trial court, after granting leave to file the proceeding, and after hearing arguments, granted the defendant's motion for a summary judgment based on the verified application for leave to file the information in the nature of a quo warranto, the verified information itself, the verified response, and the affidavit of the movant. The appeal is from that judgment.
The ultimate question for decision here is whether or not under the facts of this case the defendant Steine was eligible to hold office as a member of the City Council of Augusta from the Eighth Ward, to which office he had been elected by a majority jority of the voters voting in an election held in the City of Augusta on the 11th day of October, 1967. By an Act approved December 4, 1890 (Ga.L.1890, p. 459), the legislature amended the charter of the City of Augusta so as to provide therein that 'the mayor and members of the city council of Augusta, of the City of Augusta, shall not be eligible to re-election to the same office for the period of one term of their respective offices; provided, this shall not apply to any person holding either of said offices for an unexpired term.' In an Act approved February 8, 1955, the legislature amended the charter of the City of Augusta by adding thereto a provision as follows: Ga.L.1955, pp. 2120, 2122.
Under the charter of the City of Augusta, there are two council posts to be filled by representatives from the Eighth Ward, which posts we shall hereinafter, for the sake of convenience, refer to as 'Post 1' and 'Post 2.' The terms of the respective councilman are staggered so that both councilmen from the same ward are not elected in the same year. The appellee in this case, M. Harry Steine, served as a member of the city council of Augusta from the Eighth Ward in Post 1 for a full term of three years from the 4th day of January, 1960. He was again sworn in as a member of the City Council of Augusta from the Eighth Ward, Post 1, for his second term on the 7th day of January, 1963, and served until the 3rd day of January, 1966. He did not offer for reelection in 1966 and another succeeded him in the office which he had held. In 1961, J. MacRae Howard was elected to serve as Councilman from the Eighth Ward in Post 2. He took his seat and was again elected for a three year term in 1964. Said term commenced in January of 1965. Howard did in 1967 prior to the expiration of his second term and the appellant Boyles and the appellee Steine offered for election to fill the vacancy created by Howard's death and also for a full three year term commencing in ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Labovitz v. Hopkinson
...in question unless the failure to do so would lead to an absurdity manifestly not intended by the legislature. Boyles v. Steine, 224 Ga. 392, 395, 162 S.E.2d 324 (1968); OCGA § 1-3-1(a). "That construction which will uphold a statute in whole and in every part is to be preferred." Exum v. C......
-
Taco Bell Corp. v. Calson Corp., s. 77665
...of the statute ... unless the failure to do so would lead to an absurdity manifestly not intended by the legislature." Boyles v. Steine, 224 Ga. 392, 395, 162 S.E.2d 324. We thus will look first to the entire wording of the statute, but " ' "where the language [of the statute] is plain and ......
-
Birge v. State
...of it surplusage unless no other construction is reasonably possible. Drake v. Drewry, 109 Ga. 399, 401, 35 S.E. 44; Boyles v. Steine, 224 Ga. 392, 395, 162 S.E.2d 324. We believe Code Ann. § 26-3001, supra, is a general prohibition of invasion of privacy which relates to all persons withou......
-
Abdulkadir v. State
...right for any reason will be affirmed. City of Gainesville v. Dodd, 275 Ga. 834, 835, 573 S.E.2d 369 (2002). 17. Boyles v. Steine, 224 Ga. 392, 395-96, 162 S.E.2d 324 (1968). Also, as noted above, in construing the rape shield statute, we may not disregard any of the language used therein, ......
-
I Am Not My Brother's Keeper: a Brief History of Georgia's Apportionment Statute and the Future of Tort Reform
...raises absurdity questions. Gen. Elec. Credit Corp. v. Brooks, 242 Ga. 109, 112, 249 S.E.2d 596, 599 (1978).148. Boyles v. Steine, 224 Ga. 392, 395, 162 S.E.2d 324, 327 (1968); Labovitz v. Hopkinson, 271 Ga. 330, 336, 519 S.E.2d 672, 677 (1999). Undercofler v. Capital Automobile Co. is a go......