Cutcher v. Crawford

• Decision Date: 23 July 1898
• Citation: 31 S.E. 139,105 Ga. 180
• Parties: CUTCHER et al. v. CRAWFORD et al., County Com'rs.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

31 S.E. 139

105 Ga. 180

CUTCHER et al. v. CRAWFORD et al., County Com'rs.

Supreme Court of Georgia

July 23, 1898

Syllabus by the Court.

1. A minority report, signed by a senator and appearing in the senate journal, which, in effect, states that notice of the introduction of a given bill had not been published, and that the advocates of the bill admitted that no notice had been given that this bill was to be introduced, is not, after its passage, competent evidence to prove that no notice of the introduction of such bill had been published. An act of the general assembly cannot be invalidated in this manner.

2. Nor is a certified copy from the office of the secretary of state of the consolidated return of an election held in a given county upon the question of removing the county site thereof admissible in evidence for the purpose of showing that the general assembly, in acting upon a bill providing for such removal, did not have before it legal evidence showing that such an election had been held, and that two-thirds of the qualified voters thereat voted in favor of a removal of the county site to a particular place.

Error from superior court, Fannin county; Geo. F. Gober, Judge.

Suit by L. G. Cutcher and others against H. B. Crawford and others county commissioners. Decree for defendants, and plaintiffs bring error. Affirmed.

Dorsey Brewster & Howell, Phillips & Brown, Sanders McDaniel, and Hugh M. Dorsey, for plaintiffs in error.

Draper & Hull and Clay & Blair, for defendants in error.

LUMPKIN P.J.

On December 13, 1895, the general assembly passed an act to change the county site of Fannin county from Morganton to Blue Ridge. Acts 1895, p. 420. The preamble of this act recites that on the 13th day of August, 1895, an election was held in that county for the purpose of changing the county site, and that "at said election so held two-thirds of the legal votes cast at said election were in favor of the removal of said county site from the town of Morganton to the town of Blue Ridge, in said county." Certain citizens and taxpayers of the county brought an equitable petition against the county commissioners to enjoin them from building a jail for the county in Blue Ridge. This petition was predicated upon two grounds: First, because the above-mentioned act was unconstitutional, for the reason that it was "a local bill, and notice of the intention to introduce said bill, as required by the constitution of the state, was not given nor published in the locality affected by such bill"; and, second, because "less than two-thirds of the votes cast at said election were in favor of removal of said county site, as the consolidated returns of said election showed." The injunction was denied, and the plaintiffs excepted.

1. At the hearing they offered in evidence an official copy of the senate journal of 1895, containing the following: "Mr. Cumming, of the Eighteenth district, member of the special judiciary, submitted the following minority report: Mr. President: The undersigned dissents from the report of the special judiciary committee on house bill No. 730, by Mr. McDaniel, of Fannin, in reference to changing the county site of Fannin county, which was favorable to the passage of the bill, and recommends instead that the bill do not pass, for the reason that in the opinion of the undersigned this is a local bill, and there is no evidence that notice thereof was given as prescribed by the constitution and statutes, but, on the contrary, it was admitted by the advocates of the bill that no notice was given that this bill was to be introduced. Respectfully submitted, [Signed] Bryan Cumming."

This evidence was properly rejected. Its purpose was to show that no notice of the bill to change the county site of Fannin county had been published. We do not think an act of the general assembly can be invalidated in this manner. At most the report was nothing more than a statement by Senator Cumming that, in his opinion, this was a local bill, notice of the introduction of which had not been duly given. Surely, it would never do to declare void an act of the legislature upon the strength of anything contained in a minority report which was overridden by that branch of the general assembly to which it was presented. Presumably, the senate, by a...