Coleman v. Board of Ed. of Emanuel County
| Decision Date | 01 December 1908 |
| Citation | 63 S.E. 41,131 Ga. 643 |
| Parties | COLEMAN et al. v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF EMANUEL COUNTY et al. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
The act approved August 21, 1906 (Acts 1906, p. 61), amending the act approved August 23, 1905 (Acts 1905, p. 425), is not unconstitutional on the ground that the provision in the body of the act for the levy of a "local tax for public schools" is unauthorized by the caption of the act which described the tax to be levied as a "local tax *** for educational purposes."
[Ed Note.-For other cases, see Statutes, Dec. Dig. § 121 [*]]
The act referred to in the first headnote is not violative of article 7, § 1, par. 1, and article 7, § 6, par. 2, and article 8, § 1, par. 1, of the Constitution of the state of Georgia, as embodied in the Civ. Code 1895, §§ 5882, 5892, 5906, because the act fails to specify on its face that the local tax assessed for educational purposes shall be used for the instruction of children in the elementary branches of an English education, nor because the act fails to provide on its face that the schools shall be free to all children alike, nor because the act fails to specify that the schools for the white and colored races shall be separate. With reference to these matters and details in the conduct of schools and application of the money raised by taxation, the act referred to will be construed in connection with existing laws.
[Ed Note.-For other cases, see Schools and School Districts, Dec. Dig. § 91. [*] ]
Nor does the act referred to in the first headnote violate article 7, § 2, par. 2, of the Constitution of Georgia, as embraced in Civ. Code 1895, § 5884, because the act recites that the tax will be imposed upon "all the property of the county," without making any express provision for the exemption of certain classes of property, which, under Pol. Code 1895, §§ 762, 763, are exempted. The act is to be construed in connection with those sections of the Code, and not as repealing them.
[Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Schools and School Districts, Dec. Dig. § 91. [*] ]
Nor does the failure of the act in question to provide expressly for contesting an election authorized to be held thereunder before the law becomes effective in a given community by any person, or for "having his rights or interests thereunder inquired into or passed upon," render the act obnoxious to article 1, § 1, par. 3, of the Constitution of the state of Georgia, nor to article 5 of amendments to Constitution of the United States (Civ. Code 1895, §§ 5700, 6018), declaring that no person shall be deprived of his property except by due process of law, nor to article 14, par. 1, of amendments to Constitution of the United States (Civ. Code 1895, § 6030), declaring that no state shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.
[Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Constitutional Law, Dec. Dig. § 283. [*]]
As a general rule, courts of equity will not deal with contests of elections; but, where a statute authorized a tax on property, and provided that the law should become operative in any county or school district only on condition that at an election to be held for the purpose the requisite vote should favor the law being made applicable, if, after a pretended election, the levy of a tax on the property of a taxpayer is attempted, equity will, upon appropriate allegations in a petition of the taxpayer, inquire into the validity of the election.
[Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Schools and School Districts, Dec. Dig. § 107. [*]]
The Legislature has power to enact a law which shall become effective in a particular county or district upon a vote of the people thereof at an election.
[Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Constitutional Law, Cent. Dig. § 116; Dec. Dig. § 65. [*]]
The petition to the ordinary involved in this case considered as a whole was for a county election, and the order for a county election was not void on the ground that it was based on a petition for a district election.
[Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Schools and School Districts, Dec. Dig. § 103. [*]]
Upon the contention that the returns from certain precincts should have been excluded on the ground that the election therein was held at other places than at the lawfully established precincts, the evidence authorized the decision of the presiding judge against such contention.
[Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Schools and School Districts, Dec. Dig. § 103. [*]]
That the registrars, because of lack of sufficient time before the election, failed to purge the registration list, but furnished to the election managers unpurged lists, except at one precinct, where no list was furnished, and that the superintendents of election failed to consolidate the returns from the several precincts promptly at noon on the day next succeeding the election, and received returns from a precinct which did not arrive until 2 o'clock, and received returns which had been sent by mail to the ordinary and by him opened and delivered to the superintendents, are irregularities resulting from a failure to observe statutory provisions which are merely directory, and, in the absence of any fraud or evidence that persons had voted who were not authorized to vote, or had been deprived of voting who were entitled to vote, and that such votes would have changed the result of the election, will not be sufficient cause to set aside the entire election.
[Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Elections, Cent. Dig. § 197; Dec. Dig. § 227. [*] ]
Upon the whole case, the presiding judge did not err in refusing to grant the interlocutory injunction prayed for.
Error from Superior Court, Emanuel County; B. T. Rawlings, Judge.
Equitable petition by J. C. Coleman and others against the Board of Education of Emanuel County and others. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiffs bring error. Affirmed.
The act approved August 21, 1906 (Acts 1906, p. 61), in amendment of the act approved August 23, 1905 (Acts 1905, p. 425), is not unconstitutional on the ground that the provision in the body of the act for levy of a "local tax for public schools" is unauthorized by the caption of the act, which describes the tax to be levied as a "local tax for educational purposes."
Coleman and others, as citizens and taxpayers of the county of Emanuel, on behalf of themselves and all other citizens occupying a similar position, filed their equitable petition against the members of the board of education and also the commissioners of roads and revenues, for the purpose of enjoining the assessment and collection of a local tax in that county for educational purposes. The act of 1905 (Acts 1905, p. 425), as amended by the act of 1906 (Acts 1906, p. 61), under which the election was held, was attacked as unconstitutional on numerous grounds, and the election held under it was also attacked as invalid for various reasons. Upon the hearing the presiding judge refused to grant an interlocutory injunction, and the plaintiffs excepted.
Saffold & Larsen, for plaintiffs in error.
R. L. Gamble, for defendants in error.
Several previous attacks have been made upon the constitutionality of the act of 1905 (Acts 1905, p. 425) as originally passed, and also as amended by the act of 1906 (Acts 1906, p. 61). See Ga. R. Co. v. Hutchinson, 125 Ga. 762, 54 S.E. 725; Brown v. So. Ry. Co., 125 Ga. 772, 54 S.E. 729; Edalgo v. So. Ry. Co., 129 Ga. 258, 58 S.E. 846. So far this legislation has withstood the attacks made upon it, except as to a part of the act of 1905 before its amendment; and the validity of the amended act is now again vigorously attacked on the ground that it is unconstitutional.
1. It is contended that the act contains matter in its body which is not covered by the caption, because in the caption the language used is, (a) "Local tax for educational purposes," while in the body of the act language is used referring to (a) "local tax for public schools." Public schools are instrumentalities for educational purposes. If the provision in regard to the manner of voting in the election in the use of the words "public schools," when considered in connection with the immediate contest, varies at all from the caption, it is not broader than the caption, but narrower. The body of the act in this respect does not contain matter not covered by the caption, but rather language which is overlapped and more than covered by the caption. There is no law which makes an act unconstitutional because language employed in the body of the act is not as broad as might be warranted by the caption. Plumb v. Christie, 103 Ga. 700, 30 S.E. 759, 42 L.R.A. 181.
2. It is urged that the act is violative of the constitutional provisions embodied in Civ. Code 1895, §§ 5882, 5892, 5906 because it fails to specify on its face that the local tax assessed for educational purposes shall be used for the instruction of children in the elementary branches of an English education, which is the kind of education within the purview of the constitutional provisions cited, and because it fails to provide on its face that the schools shall be free to all children alike, or that there shall be separate schools for the white and colored races. The act providing for the holding of local elections, and, upon a favorable result thereof, the imposition of a local educational tax, is not void because it does not provide for the details of the application of the fund, being passed to carry into effect the constitutional amendment adopted in 1903 (Laws 1903, p. 23), and in connection with the school laws of the state, which already cover the subjects referred to, and dealing with the general school system of the state as already established. The act is not void...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Southern Ry. Co v. Melton.&dagger
...v. Commissioners, 91 Ga. 770, 18 S. E. 28 (road law to go into effect in county on recommendation of grand jury); Coleman v. Board of Education, 131 Ga. 644, 63 S. E. 41 (school tax, put into effect in counties or districts by vote). In 6 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law (2d Ed.) 1022, it is said: "A ma......
-
Southern Ry. Co. v. Melton
... ... effect in a particular town or county upon the holding of an ... election, or the recommendation of a grand ... upon recommendation of a board of experts, to establish ... standards of teas which might be imported ... grand jury); Coleman v. Board of Education, 131 Ga ... 644, 63 S.E. 41 (school tax, put into ... ...
-
Alexander v. Ryan
...33 S.E. 718; Slate v. Blue Ridge, 113 Ga. 646(3), 38 S.E. 977; Chamlee v. Davis, 115 Ga. 266(5), 41 S.E. 691; Coleman v. Board of Education, 131 Ga. 643(9), 63 S.E. 41; Brumby v. Marietta, 132 Ga. 408, 64 S.E. 321; Brown v. Atlanta, 152 Ga. 283(4), 109 S.E. 666; Stewart v. Cartwright, 156 G......
-
Alexander v. Ryan
... ... ordinary to provide and furnish at the expense of the county, ... * * * official ballots for all such elections, having printed ... 977; Chamlee v. Davis, 115 Ga. 266(5), 41 S.E. 691; ... Coleman v. Board of Education, 131 Ga. 643(9), 63 ... S.E. 41; Brumby v ... ...