City of Atlanta v. Sims, 18560
| Decision Date | 12 May 1954 |
| Docket Number | No. 18560,18560 |
| Citation | 82 S.E.2d 130,210 Ga. 605 |
| Parties | CITY OF ATLANTA v. SIMS. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
J. C. Savage, J. C. Murphy, J. M. B. Bloodworth, Henry L. Bowden, Martin McFarland, Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.
Joseph S. Crespi, John E. Feagin, Atlanta, for defendant in error.
William G. Grant, Atlanta, for party at interest not party to record.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court.
Lowry A. Sims brought his petition against the City of Atlanta, wherein he sought to enjoin the city from proceeding to condemn certain property of the plaintiff for right of way of the North-South Expressway, and in which the city had elected to proceed pursuant to the provisions of the act of the General Assembly of 1953, Ga.L.1953, Jan.-Feb. Sess. p. 360, Ga.Code Ann. § 36-1101 et seq., wherein it is provided that the procedure thereby prescribed could be resorted to by counties and municipalities having a population of more than 250,000, or by counties having partly within their boundaries a municipality having a population of more than 250,000, according to the last or any future Federal decennial census. The act of 1953 was attacked upon numerous constitutional grounds, among which were that the act offended the equal protection clause, Code Ann. § 2-102, art. 1, § 1, par. 2; the uniformity clause, Code Ann. § 2-401, art. 1, § 4, par. 1, and article 6, § 9, paragraph 1 of the Constitution, Code Ann. § 2-4401, which provides that 'the jurisdiction, powers, proceedings and practice of all courts or officers invested with judicial powers (except City Courts) of the same grade or class, so far as regulated by law, and the force and effect of the process, judgment and decree, by such courts, severally, shall be uniform.' To the judgment overruling a general demurrer to this petition the City of Atlanta excepted. Held:
1. The act of 1953 is almost identical with the act of 1952, Ga.L.1952, p. 29, which this court, in City of Atlanta v. Wilson, 209 Ga. 527, 74 S.E.2d 455, 456, held to be violative of the two constitutional provisions first above stated. The act of 1953, as did the act of 1952, attempts to confer upon the limited number of municipalities and counties the benefit of the procedure therein provided while denying that procedure to all other cities and counties with populations of less than 250,000. As pointed out in the Wilson case, supra, 'Population in no wise affects or relates to such a privilege', and what was there said as to the invalidity of the act of 1952 applies with equal force to the act of 1953. The principal differences in the two acts, insofar as the questions here dealt with are concerned, is that the act of 1953 does not empower the counties and municipalities therein classified to condemn private property for public purposes in other counties, as did the act of 1952, but the act of 1953 does, while ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kansas City v. Webb, 35677
...compensation to all owners of property. In re Manhattan Civic Centre Area, 57 Misc.2d 156, 291 N.Y.S.2d 656. And see City of Atlanta v. Sims, 210 Ga. 605, 82 S.E.2d 130; City of Atlanta v. Wilson, 209 Ga. 527, 74 S.E.2d In McClung v. Pulitzer Pub. Co., 279 Mo. 370, 214 S.W. 193, a statute p......
-
Humthlett v. Reeves
...adjoining county. Stewart v. Anderson, 140 Ga. 31, 78 S.E. 457; City of Atlanta v. Wilson, 209 Ga. 527, 74 S.E.2d 455; City of Atlanta v. Sims, 210 Ga. 605, 82 S.E.2d 130. The act of 1911, by its own terms, limits its operation to those counties which adjoined another county having a popula......
-
Mitchell v. State Highway Dept. of Ga., 21065
...be called in question under a separate proceeding in equity. City of Atlanta v. Wilson, 209 Ga. 527, 74 S.E.2d 455; City of Atlanta v. Sims, 210 Ga. 605, 82 S.E.2d 130. 'However, while it has been held that a separate petition in equity for injunction may, in certain instances, be brought t......
-
Mallory v. Upson County Bd. of Educ.
...use the special master procedure and further assuming that such a limitation would not be unconstitutional (but see City of Atlanta v. Sims, 210 Ga. 605, 82 S.E.2d 130 (1954)), the question must then become what effect, if any, the 1967 amendment to the Special Master Act had upon the emine......