Bray v. City of East Point
| Decision Date | 16 January 1948 |
| Docket Number | 16022. |
| Citation | 46 S.E.2d 257,203 Ga. 315 |
| Parties | BRAY et al. v. CITY OF EAST POINT et al. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied Feb. 12, 1948.
Syllabus by the Court.
Where the title of an act purports to enumerate the land lots and parts of land lots included in the territory to be annexed to a city, and the body of the act, describing the annexed territory, includes parts of two land lots omitted from the title, the act violates the constitutional prohibition against the passage of legislation which 'contains matter different from what is expressed in the title,' and is void.
O J. Bray and others, as resident real estate owners and taxpayers of certain territory annexed to the City of East Point by an act of the General Assembly of 1947, Ga.L.1947 p. 1001, brought a petition against the City of East Point and named persons as the mayor and members of the General Council, the chairman and members of the Zoning Committee of the City of East Point, and Charley Connally, the owner of certain real estate in land lot 185 of the 14th district of Fulton County. The petition attacked the constitutionality of the annexing act on several grounds, and attacked the election held pursuant to the act, which election resulted in favor of annexation. The petitioners alleged: The mayor and general council of the City of East Point are attempting to exercise power over the petitioners and others living in the annexed territory, claiming them to be citizens of the city and subject to the obligations by law imposed upon them by the city; unless the defendants are restrained and enjoined from so doing, they will continue to seek to exercise dominion and control over such territory and endeavor to collect taxes from the residents thereof, to impose license fees upon persons engaged in business in such territory, to rezone such territory, and generally to deal with the citizens of the territory as legal residents of the city. The petitioners have expended large sums of money in improving and beautifying their homes upon the promise that the territory affected would remain for residential purposes only. Charley Connally, one of the defendants named, has applied to the zoning committee of the City of East Point to have certain property owned by him in this territory rezoned for business purposes. The petitioners believe that unless restrained and enjoined, the zoning committee will allow this rezoning, and that such action will be null and void. The petitioners are without adequate remedy at law. They prayed for process; that the mayor and general council of the City of East Point be restrained and permanently enjoined from exercising or seeking to exercise dominion, control, or supervision of the territory described, or any of the residents or citizens thereof, and from dealing with the territory as a part of the City of East Point; that the zoning committee and Charley Connally be restrained and permanently enjoined from changing the present zoning restrictions on the property owned by Connally; and for such further relief as they may be entitled to in the premises.
The trial judge sustained the general demurrers of the defendants, and dissolved the temporary restraining order previously granted, with certain conditions pending, an appeal of the case. The exception here is to the order sustaining the demurrers and dismissing the petition.
Camp & Boyd, of Atlanta, for plaintiffs in error.
Ezra E. Phillips, of Atlanta, for defendants in error.
The title of the act extending the limits of the City of East Point states the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nelson v. Southern Guaranty Ins. Co.
...94 Ga. 766(1), 22 S.E. 57; Hawkins v. State, 146 Ga. 134, 90 S.E. 968; Black v. Jones, 190 Ga. 95, 8 S.E.2d 385; Bray v. City of Esat Point, 203 Ga. 315, 46 S.E.2d 257; Cade v. State, 207 Ga. 135, 60 S.E.2d 763; Ball v. Peavy, 210 Ga. 575, 82 S.E.2d 143. The trial judge correctly held that ......
-
Gee v. State
...enough to protect the people against covert or surprise legislation. Cady v. Jardine, 185 Ga. 9, 193 S.E. 869; Bray v. City of East Point, 203 Ga. 315, 317, 46 S.E.2d 257; State of Georgia v. Resolute Ins. Co., 221 Ga. 815(2), 147 S.E.2d 433. This ground is without 3. Error 3 alleges that t......
-
Brown v. Clower
...94 Ga. 766(1) 22 S.E. 57; Hawkins v. State, 146 Ga. 134, 90 S.E. 968; Black v. Jones, 190 Ga. 95, 8 S.E.2d 385; Bray v. City of East Point, 203 Ga. 315, 46 S.E.2d 257; Cade v. State, 207 Ga. 135, 60 S.E.2d 763; Ball v. Peavy, 210 Ga. 575, 82 S.E.2d 143.' Nelson v. Southern Guaranty Ins. Co.......
-
Schneider v. City of Folkston
...nullify the charter of the Town of Homeland, contains matter different from what is expressed in the title thereof. Bray v. City of East Point, 203 Ga. 315, 46 S.E.2d 257; Adams v. City of Cornelia, 206 Ga. 687, 58 S.E.2d 398; Cade v. State, 207 Ga. 135, 60 S.E.2d (c) For the reasons above ......