Cowart v. City of Waycross
| Decision Date | 17 January 1925 |
| Docket Number | 4174. |
| Citation | 126 S.E. 476,159 Ga. 589 |
| Parties | COWART ET AL. v. CITY OF WAYCROSS ET AL. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
The provision requiring notice to be given as to the place at which the bonds were to be paid, as was properly held by the judge of the superior court, is notice subsequent and not precedent to the issuance of the bonds.
Upon consideration of the law and evidence the court was authorized to find that the registration of voters in this case was a compliance with a provision for a general registration, and not an attempt to have a registration for a special election for the creation of a new debt, in disobedience of the amendment to article 7, section 7 paragraph 1, of the Constitution, which was ratified at the general election held in 1918.
The court did not err in validating the issue of $125,000 of school bonds, so as to permit the city of Waycross to issue the same.
Additional Syllabus by Editorial Staff.
Construction which will uphold a statute is to be preferred to one which will destroy it.
Where result of election is contested on any ground, declared result of election is prima facie correct and legal result of balloting, and contestants have burden to rebut prima facie case.
Error from Superior Court, Ware County; J. I. Summerall, Judge.
Petition to validate bonds by the Solicitor General of Waycross Judicial Circuit, in behalf of the State, against the City of Waycross, in which Dan T. Cowart and others intervened. Judgment validated and confirmed bond issue, and interveners bring error. Affirmed.
E. K Wilcox, of Valdosta, and Dickerson & Kelley, of Douglas, for plaintiffs in error.
A. B Spence, Sol. Gen., Parker & Parker, Parks, Reed & Garrett, Blalock & Blalock, Jerome Crawley, J. H. Quarterman, and Wilson & Bennett, all of Waycross, for defendants in error.
On November 7, 1923, an election was held in the city of Waycross to determine whether or not bonds in the sum of $125,000 should be issued for the purpose of providing, building, and equipping public school buildings in the city. The city commission declared the result of the election in favor of bonds; and, after the usual notice to the solicitor general of the Waycross judicial circuit, he filed a petition in behalf of the state against the city of Waycross for the validation of the bonds. The city answered and admitted all of the allegations of the petition, and joined in the prayers thereof; but Dan T. Cowart and 18 other citizens and taxpayers intervened in opposition to the validation of the bonds, and were by appropriate order made parties to the proceeding, with full right to interpose and urge objections to the confirmation of the bonds. By their intervention as amended they alleged that the bonds were not and could not be made valid and binding obligations of the city of Waycross for two reasons: (1) Because the city commission did not, in the ordinance calling the election, specify the place of payment of the bonds; (2) because the election was illegal, in that no legal list of registered voters of the city was prepared and used therein, and the bonds were not assented to and authorized by the requisite number of qualified voters at an election legally called and held for that purpose. The case came on for hearing, and at the conclusion of the evidence and after argument of counsel the court rendered a judgment validating and confirming said issue of bonds, and the interveners excepted.
1. Was the ordinance calling the election void because it failed to specify the place of payment of the bonds? In our opinion the resolution calling the election contained all that is required by section 440 of the Civil Code of 1910. That section declares:
It will be noted that the essential contents of the notice of the election are specifically stated; and under the express terms of the code section the voters need not be notified except as to the amount of bonds, the purpose for which they are to be issued, the rate of interest they are to bear, how much principal and interest is to be paid annually, and when the bonds issued are to be fully paid off. Nothing is said as to the place at which the bonds are to be paid, and we think the reason why the notice as to the place where the bonds are to be paid was properly omitted is because that is a matter in which the purchasers of the bonds are much more interested than are the citizens who are subjecting themselves to liability for the indebtedness are concerned. The voters who will become liable to pay the bonds are of course concerned as to the purpose for which the debt is created, and as to the amount of bonds to be issued, and as to the rate of interest, and as to how and when the indebtedness they are to assume is to be discharged, and all of these matters are included in the notice required by section 440, supra. But no substantial right of the municipality would be affected, if, in selling the bonds after they issue, the place of payment is fixed to suit the convenience of the buyers of the bonds. The place where the bonds are to be paid is merely an incident to the sale of the bonds after their issue, whereas the requirements of the notice provided by section 440, supra, include information as to all such essential matters as would enable a voter to determine whether in his opinion the bonds should or should not be issued.
This is express authority to issue the bonds when the notice required by section 440 is given and the election held in accordance with section 441. However, we do not think that the terms of section 30 of the charter of the city of Waycross, when that section is construed as a whole, requires that the resolution calling the election shall prescribe the place of payment of the bonds. It was certainly not the intention of the Legislature to pass a special provision in regard to the notice to be given in Waycross, in conflict with the terms of section 440, supra, the general law upon the subject of such notice. So the requirement of section 30 as to the place of payment (which does not appear in section 440, supra) is merely that such notice shall be given before the bonds shall be issued. The requirements of section 440 must be complied with before the election prescribed in section 441. Notice as to the place of payment of bonds issued by the city of Waycross is complied with if such notice be given before the bonds are issued. Validation precedes issuance, and issuance is the act of floating or disposing of the bonds. In ...
To continue reading
Request your trial