Early County v. Baker County
| Decision Date | 15 November 1911 |
| Citation | 72 S.E. 905,137 Ga. 126 |
| Parties | EARLY COUNTY v. BAKER COUNTY. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
The statute, making provision for the delineation of the disputed county line (Civil Code 1910, §§ 473, 474, 475), is not violative of the Constitution of Georgia, article 1, § 1 par. 23, because it is an attempt to confer judicial power upon the Secretary of State. The statute was not intended to provide a special court, in which the counties were invited to litigate over their territorial boundaries, but devised a process by which the state would be enabled to ascertain the true boundary between its political subdivisions. The function of the Secretary of State in this process was of a political, and not of a judicial, nature.
Certified question from Court of Appeals.
Controversy between Early County and Baker County as to location of boundary. Heard on certified questions from the Court of Appeals as to constitutionality of Civ. Code 1910, §§ 473-475. Statute held constitutional.
Pope & Bonnet and R. H. Sheffield, for plaintiff in error.
A. S Johnson and Benton Odom, for defendant in error.
The Court of Appeals certifies the following question of constitutional law: "Is the act of 1899 (Acts 1899, p 24), contained in the Civil Code 1910, §§ 473, 474, 475 unconstitutional and void, for the reason that the statute in question is an attempt to confer upon the Secretary of State, who is a person discharging executive powers, the right to exercise a judicial function, in violation of article 1, § 1, par. 23, of the Constitution of the state of Georgia, which provides that "The legislative, judicial, and executive powers shall remain forever separate and distinct, and no person discharging the duties of one shall at the same time exercise the functions of either of the others?"'
Counties are political subdivisions of the state, established as auxiliaries in the important business of local government. Public duties are required of them as part of the machinery of the state; and, in order that they may better perform such duties, they are vested with certain corporate powers. Their functions are wholly of a public nature, and at all times they are subject to the will of the Legislature, unless there is some constitutional restraint. Laramie County v. Albany County, 92 U.S. 307, 23 L.Ed. 553. It is essential to the existence of a county that its boundaries be defined. It rests with the Legislature of the state not only to originally define the boundaries, but also to provide means whereby the true localities of such boundaries on the ground may be finally determined. 11 Cyc. 346.
As the delineation of the boundaries in the establishment of a county is a political function of government, likewise the discovery of an original boundary line and its re-establishment as such is a political function. The Legislature may provide various means to find the location of a boundary which, from the lapse of time or other cause, may have become obscure or uncertain. It may provide for a survey, and may stipulate that such survey shall be final and conclusive as to the true location. Or a commission may be appointed to discover the boundary as originally located. If the Legislature adopts the course of locating the indistinct or uncertain boundary by a survey, it may provide for its verification by a second survey, or by a revision of it by civil engineers, or by a ministerial official. Should the Legislature enact that a disputed boundary line between counties should be ascertained by a survey made by the county surveyor of an adjoining county, and that such survey would be conclusive when approved by a civil engineer appointed by the Governor, could it be contended that it was intended to constitute the civil engineer a special court, and that his function in approving the survey was of a judicial nature subject to review by the courts? Clearly not. Yet in the performance of the duty of verifying the accuracy of the survey, the engineer necessarily would have before him the notes of the surveyor and other data, to enable him to approve or disapprove the correctness of the survey. Carry the illustration a step further. Would it make any essential difference in the nature and character of the engineer's function if he was authorized to acquire information from any available source in arriving at his conclusion? We do not think so, because, it being competent...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bibb Cnty. v. Monroe Cnty.
...a purely political question”). In support of this argument, Bibb County and the Secretary cite our opinion in Early County v. Baker County, 137 Ga. 126, 72 S.E. 905 (1911), in which we characterized the Secretary's duties under the boundary dispute statute as being “political” rather than “......
-
Fine v. Dade County
...However, they have no application here, since the secretary of State does not under the statute act judicially but acts only politically. Early County v. Baker County, Ga. 126, 72 S.E. 905; Smith v. Baker County, 142 Ga. 168, 82 S.E. 557; Caverly v. Stovall, 143 Ga. 705, 85 S.E. 844. As was......
-
Horne v. State
...of Emanuel County, 131 Ga. 643(6), 63 S. E, 41; Southern Ry. Co. v. Melton, 133 Ga. 277, 288, 65 S. E. 665; Early County v. Baker County, 137 Ga. 126, 72 S. E. 905. 3. Other grounds of the general demurrer are mere repetitions of the grounds stated in the next preceding headnote, and the sa......
-
Caverly v. Stovall
...line was in the exercise of a political function, to make clear an uncertain boundary of a political subdivision. Early County v. Baker County, 137 Ga. 126, 72 S. E. 905. It would be giving this statute a too far-sweeping effect, and perhaps one which would exceed the bounds of the constitu......