Bradford v. Hammond

• Decision Date: 14 June 1934
• Docket Number: Nos. 9976, 9991.,s. 9976, 9991.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court
• Parties: BRADFORD et al. v. HAMMOND et al. HAMMOND et al. v. BRADFORD et al.

179 Ga. 40

175 S.E. 18

BRADFORD et al.

v.HAMMOND et al.

HAMMOND et al.

v.BRADFORD et al.

Nos. 9976, 9991.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

June 14, 1934.

Syllabus by the Court.

1. The provisions of article 1, § 4, par. 1, of the Constitution of 1877, that "laws of a general nature shall have uniform operation throughout the State, and no special law shall be enacted in any case for which provision has been made by an existing general law, " have no application whatever to the creation of boards of roads and revenues in any county in this state. This for the reason that the Constitution of 1877 itself, in article 6, § 19, expressly declares that "the General Assembly shall have power to provide for the creation of county commissioners in such counties as may require them, and to define their duties." The purpose of article 1, § 4, par. 1, was to ordain the uniform operation throughout the state of all the general laws; but to this general rule the Constitution itself made an exception as to county commissioners, which sanctions the utmost diversity consistent with the needs of the particular county that "may require them."

2. The court did not err in upholding the constitutionality of sections 6 and 7 of the act of 1933 (Ga. Laws 1933, pp. 439, 442), but erred in not dismissing the petition upon general demurrer.

Error from Superior Court, Chattooga County; James Maddox, Judge.

Suit by V. Hammond, as a citizen and taxpayer of Chattooga County, against the Members of the Board of Commissioners of Roads and Revenues of Chattooga County and another, wherein Henry Bradford and others intervened as parties defendant. To review the judgment, interveners bring error, plaintiff filing a cross-bill of exceptions.

Reversed on the main bill of exceptions, and affirmed on the cross-bill.

Sections 6, 7, 8, and 9 of an act approved March 18, 1933 (Ga. Laws 1933, p. 439), entitled "An Act to abolish the Board of Commissioners of Roads and Revenue of Chattooga County, Georgia; to create a new Board of Commissioners of Roads and Revenue of said County; to provide for the qualification and election of the members of said board; to define their powers and duties; to prohibit nepotism and the trading of said members of said board between themselves and those related to them; to provide penalties for a violation of said law; and for other purposes, " are as follows:

"Section 6. * * * That no person who is related by blood or marriage within the fourth degree to any member of the Board of Commissioners of Roads and Revenue ofsaid county, or to the county warden, or warden of the chain-gang, or to the clerk of the Board of Commissioners of Roads and Revenue of said county, shall be eligible to employment by the said County of Chattooga in any position, or to do or perform any service or labor for said county, or as chain-gang guard; that no person so employed shall be entitled to receive any pay or compensation therefor, and any person ineligible under this Act, who Is now in the service or employment of the county at the time of the passage of this Act, shall be ineligible to continue in such service or employment.

"Section 7. * * * That no member of the Board of Commissioners of Roads and Revenue of said county shall employ or vote to employ or pay or vote to pay any such ineligible person. No county warden or warden of the chain-gang, or clerk of the board shall employ or authorize the employment of any such ineligible person, or continue or authorize the continuance of any such ineligible person in any employment; provided, however, that any relative of any of the above-named officials shall be entitled to work out his road tax.

"Section 8. * * * That no member of the Board of Commissioners of Roads and Revenue and no county warden or warden of the chain-gang or clerk of the board shall buy or sell to the said Chattooga County anything whatsoever, either directly or indirectly, and no corporation, firm, or partnership in which such officials, or any of them, are financially interested or by whom they are employed, shall buy from or sell to said county any property of any kind or character.

"Section 9. * * * That it shall be unlawful for the said Board of County Commissioners of Roads and Revenue, or any member thereof, or the county warden, or the warden of the chain-gang, or the clerk of the board to buy from or sell to any person or persons related by blood or marriage, within the fourth degree according to Canon law, to any person employed by Chattooga County in any capacity whatever, either directly or indirectly, or from any firm, corporation, or partnership in which such person may be an official or employed or financially interested; and it shall be likewise unlawful for any such person or persons who are related by blood or marriage to buy from or sell to Chattooga County anything whatsoever or for any corporation, firm, or partnership in which said person or persons may be officials, or by whom the said person or persons may be employed to buy or sell anything whatever to said Chattooga County."

Section 12 makes a violation of the provisions of either of the sections above quoted a misdemeanor.

V. Hammond, as a citizen and taxpayer of Chattooga county, filed a petition against the members of the board of commissioners of roads and revenues of that county, and against E. H. Smith, praying that the commissioners be enjoined from enforcing the four sections of the act of 1933 which have been quoted. The petition attacked the provisions of the act which have been set out, as violative of article 1, § 4, par. 1, of the Constitution of 1877, as follows: "Laws of a general nature shall have uniform operation throughout the State, and no special law shall be enacted in any case for which provision has been made by an existing general law. No general law affecting private rights shall be varied in any particular case by special legislation, except with the free consent, in writing, of all persons to be affected thereby; and no person under legal disability to contract is capable of such consent, " in that said sections are in conflict with the general laws of this state as embodied in the Civil Code of 1910, as follows: Section 393. "No ordinary, county commissioner, board of county commissioners, or any other county officer authorized or empowered by law to use public or county funds for the purchase of goods or property of any kind for public or county purposes, shall purchase said goods or property from any store in which he is an employee, or in which he is directly or indirectly interested, or from any person or partnership of which he is a member, or by whom he is employed, unless by sanction of the majority of the board of county commissioners of the county, or unless it shall be made clearly to appear that the said individual, partnership, or owner of the store offers and will sell the goods or property as cheap or cheaper than it can be bought elsewhere." Section 698. "Said authorities may purchase any and all machinery, implements, tools, wagons, and stock necessary and required for working said roads, and may build such houses or stockades, and purchase any thing or article necessary and useful in handling and working the chain-gang." Section 699. "Said authorities shall expend said public-road fund in any manner they may deem best for putting and keeping the roads in thorough condition and repair." The petition alleged that the plaintiff had submitted a bid to furnish certain supplies to the county at a lower price than other bidders, but his bid had been rejected because he was related to one of the members of the board of commissioners, and the contract was awarded to E. H. Smith, whose bid was considerably higher than that submitted by the plaintiff, who is "solvent and was able, willing, and anxious to comply with said bid and furnish said articles to said county at. the prices offered"; that another contract was awarded to a higher bidder against a lower bidder, on the same ground; that the commissioners have also discharged all county employees related as set out in the act of 1933; that said act is violative of and in conflict with section 4253 of the Civil Code of 1910, providing, "A contract which is against the policy of the law can not be enforced; such are contracts tending to corrupt legislation or the judiciary, contracts in general in restraint of trade, contracts to evade or oppose the revenue laws of another country, wagering contracts, contracts of maintenance or champerty"; and that it is violative of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

By permission of the court, Bradford, Edge, and Turner intervened as parties defendant, and filed the following demurrer to the petition: "First. Interveners say that said petition sets...