Gardner v. City of Brunswick
| Decision Date | 01 December 1943 |
| Docket Number | 14738. |
| Citation | 28 S.E.2d 135,197 Ga. 167 |
| Parties | GARDNER v. CITY OF BRUNSWICK. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. The questions involved as described in division one of the opinion have become moot for the reasons therein stated.
2. A municipality, under its charter, having the authority and power generally through its mayor and counsel to establish 'ordinances, rules and regulations as shall to them appear necessary for the security, welfare, convenience and interest of said city, and the inhabitants thereof, and for preserving the health, morals, peace, order and good government of the same,' and 'to widen, extend, or straighten,' and 'to open, lay out and establish any new street, alley, lane, way or square within the limits of said city,' and other enumerated powers sufficiently broad to invent it with the general supervision and control over its streets, alleys, lanes, etc., may lawfully select any means reasonably adapted to the control of such streets including the right to regulate parking of automobiles thereon.
(a) A municipal ordinance providing for mechanical parking meters on certain designated streets in which the motorist is required to deposit a one-cent or five-cent coin for a designated number of minutes of parking, and the revenue derived from this source is by said ordinance levied to cover the cost of purchasing, leasing, regulation and control of such parking meters, is not subject to attack by an abutting property owner to the street where such meters are erected upon the grounds that the same will interfere with the operation of her business thereby causing her irreparable injury and damage; that it takes away property rights without legal process of law and is discriminatory that it exceeds the police powers granted to said municipality by its charter; and that the municipality has no authority to enter into a business as outlined in said ordinance.
Mrs Clara Gardner, in her equitable petition against the City of Brunswick, sought an injunction prohibiting the city from installing and operating parking meters along Newcastle Street in front of her property, which is described as having located thereon a hotel. She alleges that the erection and use of such parking meters on the street at this point will cause her customers, who usually park their automobiles on the street in front of her hotel while patrons thereof, to go to other hotels and tourist homes where there are no parking meters erected, thereby causing her irreparable injury and damage. The ordinance under which the city proposes to erect, and is actually erecting, the parking meters is illegal and void because 'It takes away property rights without legal process of law and is discriminatory; it exceeds the police powers granted to said defendant by its charter; and the City of Brunswick has no authority to enter into a business as outlined in said ordinance.' A copy of the ordinance was attached to the petition as exhibit. In substance it provides that parking meters shall be erected on the streets of a certain designated area of the City of Brunswick 'because of traffic conditions that have existed in certain sections of the City of Brunswick, the free movement of traffic in these sections is, and has been, impeded for a long period of time,' and 'because of the habit of numerous operators of motor vehicles of parking for long periods of time in close proximity to other motor vehicles so parked on most congested parts of the city's busiest streets tends to further impede traffic and in addition thereto constitutes a danger to life, limb and property of motorists, pedestrians and others.' Under the ordinance the parking areas are to be marked off on the street by painted lines, and the meters, which are devices mounted on standards, are to be installed along the curbing, one to each parking area. The motorist who parks in one of these spaces is required to deposit into the nearest meter a penny or a five-cent coin for a designated number of minutes of parking. The placing of the coin in the meter starts operation of the clock mechanism. Each parking meter installed indicates by a proper legend the legal parking time established by the city and when operated indicates on and by its dial and pointer the duration of the period of legal parking, and on the expiration of such period, indicates illegal or overparking. The ordinance further provides that: 'The five-cent and one-cent coins required to be deposited in parking meters as provided herein are hereby levied and assessed as fees to provide for the proper regulation and control of traffic upon the public streets and also the cost of supervision and regulating the parking of vehicles in the parking meter zones created thereby, and to cover the cost of the purchasing, leasing, regulation, and control of the parking meters described herein.' The ordinance provided a penalty for its violation.
The defendant city answered, and filed a general demurrer to the petition upon the grounds (1) that it sets forth no cause of action against the defendant; and (2) the facts alleged in the petition do not entitle the petitioner to the relief sought, or to any other relief, equitable or legal. The case proceeded to trial before the judge who, after hearing evidence, on September 14, 1943, by his order, sustained the general demurrer and dismissed the petition, and on the same date he entered another order revoking the temporary restraining order theretofore granted and denied an injunction. The exception is to these orders and judgments.
Reese, Scarlett, Bennet & Gilbert, of Brunswick, for plaintiff in error.
Conyers, Gowen & Conyers, of Brunswick, for defendant in error.
1. Plaintiff in the court below raised certain constitutional questions as to the contract entered into by the City of Brunswick under the terms of which the meters were purchased, and sought to enjoin the city from complying with the terms of the contract. It was conceded in the oral argument of counsel for plaintiff in error before this court that the contract had now been fully executed and the purchase price of the meters paid. That question is therefore moot.
2. The question as to whether a municipality has legal authority to install and use...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Decatur v. Robinson, 8 Div. 431.
... ... v ... Hood-McPherson Realty Co., 233 Ala. 352, 172 So. 114, ... 108 A.L.R. 1140 ... GARDNER, ... Chief Justice ... This ... cause was originally assigned to Mr. Justice BROWN for ... preparation of the opinion. Upon ... rel. Dreyer v. Brekke, N.D., 28 N.W.2d 598; City of ... Bloomington v. Wirrick, 381 Ill. 347, 45 N.E.2d 852; ... Gardner v. City of Brunswick, 197 Ga. 167, 28 S.E.2d ... 135; De Aryan v. City of San Diego, 75 Cal.App.2d ... 292, 170 P.2d 482; Morris v. City of Salem, 179 Or ... ...
-
State v. Scoggin
...is necessarily so for the very simple reason that the parking meters available for use are coinoperated devices. Gardner v. City of Brunswick, 197 Ga. 167, 28 S.E.2d 135; City of Louisville v. Louisville Automobile Club, 290 Ky. 241, 160 S.W. 2d 663; City of Shreveport v. Brister, 194 La. 6......
-
Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority v. Datry
...City of Dalton v. Staten, 201 Ga. 754(1), 41 S.E.2d 145 (1947) (prohibition of telephones on sidewalk); Gardner v. City of Brunswick, 197 Ga. 167, 28 S.E.2d 135 (1943) (regulation of parking by means of parking meters); Borough of Atlanta v. Kirk, 175 Ga. 395, 165 S.E. 69 (1932) (prohibitio......
-
Hickey v. Riley
...is not a right, but a privilege, and, as such, is subject to reasonable regulation under the police power. Gardner v. City of Brunswick, (1943) 197 Ga. 167, 28 S.E. (2d) 135. Reasonable access to plaintiff's premises for vehicular traffic has been provided by the establishment of an eighty-......