Comm'rs Of Glynn County v. Cate

• Decision Date: 18 September 1936
• Docket Number: No. 11417.,11417.
• Citation: 183 Ga. 111,187 S.E. 636
• Parties: COMMISSIONERS OF GLYNN COUNTY. v. CATE.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

183 Ga. 111

187 S.E. 636

COMMISSIONERS OF GLYNN COUNTY.

v.CATE.

No. 11417.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Sept. 18, 1936.

Syllabus by Editorial Staff.

Error from Superior Court, Glynn County; Gordon Knox, Judge.

Suit by the Commissioners of Roads and Revenues of Glynn County against Mrs. G. V. Cate. To review the judgment rendered, plaintiffs bring error.

Affirmed.

Conyers & Gowen, of Brunswick, for plaintiffs in error.

Colon J. Cogdell, of Brunswick, and E. J. Clower, of Atlanta, for defendant in error.

Syllabus Opinion by the Court.

GILBERT, Justice.

The commissioners of roads and revenues of Glynn county filed an equitable petition against Mrs. G. V. Cate, in the superior court of Glynn county, alleging that she owned a certain lot on St. Simons Island in Glynn county, and was erecting or planning to erect on said lot certain buildings to be used in the conduct of a mercantile business, the erection and conduct of which business was in violation of what is known as the Glynn county zoning act (Ga.Laws 1927, p. 602), which act purported to authorize the said commissioners, acting through a planning board, "to regulate and restrict the number of stories and sizes of buildings and other structures, percentage of lots that may be occupied, sizes of yards, courts, and other open spaces, the density of population, and the location and use of all buildings, structures, streets, roads, parks, and land for trade, industry, residence, recreation, or other purposes, " the stated purpose being to promote the "health, safety, morals, and the general welfare of the people of the County of Glynn." Section 1. The defendant in her answer admitted all the facts alleged, but contended that the zoning act was in violation of article 1, § 1, par. 2, of the State Constitution, which provides that "Protection to person and property is the paramount duty of government, and shall be impartial and complete, " in violation of article 1, § 1, par. 3, which provides that "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, except by due process of law, " and in violation of article 1, § 3, par. 1, which provides that "In cases of necessity, private ways may be granted upon just compensation being first paid by the applicant. Private property shall not be taken, or damaged, for public purposes, without just and adequate com pensation being first paid." At an interlocutory hearing the only evidence was an affidavit of a real estate man introduced by the petitioners, stating that in his opinion the regulations of the planning board were of financial benefit to the real property in general, including the property of the defendant. The court rendered judgment denying an injunction against the establishment and operation by the defendant of a gasoline and oil station, lunch stand or barbecue restaurant, and fruit and produce stand, provided the same be erected and conducted in compliance with other regulations of the planning board as set out in the petition, but enjoining the defendant from erecting upon the land any building with a setback of less than 30 feet from the street line along her lot, and from erecting or maintaining any signboard for advertising purposes within 150 feet from the center of the street. The petitioners excepted to that part of the judgment refusing to enjoin the defendant from using the property for business...