Gaskins v. Dorsey
| Citation | 104 S.E. 433,150 Ga. 638 |
| Decision Date | 26 October 1920 |
| Docket Number | (No. 2248.) |
| Parties | GASKINS et al. v. DORSEY, Governor, et al. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Georgia |
(Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)
Error from Superior Court, Fulton County; Jno. D. Humphries, Judge.
Suit for injunction by A. W. Gaskins and others against H. M. Dorsey, Governor, and others. Injunction refused at interlocutory hearing, and plaintiffs bring error. Affirmed.
R. A. Hendricks, W. D. Buie, and Jos. A. Alexander, all of Nashville, and Bryan & Middlebrooks, of Atlanta, for plaintiffs in error.
Brewster, Howell & Heyman and Mark Bolding, all of Atlanta, and J. P. Knight, of Nashville, for defendants in error.
Certain citizens and taxpayers of Berrien county, Ga., on September 1, 1920, filed a petition in the superior court of Fulton county against Hon. Hugh M. Dorsey, Governor of the state of Georgia, the superintendent of public printing of the state, and the secretary of state, praying that the Governor be restrained and enjoined from causing the publication of a certain proclamation authorizing the qualified voters of the state of Georgia to vote upon a certain proposal of the General Assembly of Georgia to amend the Constitution of Georgia so as to create a new county to be known as Lanier county, and that the Governor be enjoined from placing or causing to be placed upon the official ballots for the election to be held on the first Tuesday in November, 1920, any provision for the ratification or rejection of the said proposed amendment to the Constitution creating Lanier county. Petitioners also sought to enjoin the superintendent of public printing from publishing the said proclamation, and to enjoin the secretary of state from proclaiming the result of any election upon the ratification of the said proposal to amend the Constitution of the state of Georgia so as to create the county of Lanier. In the petition it is alleged that the act of the General Assembly containing the proposal to amend the Constitution was unconstitutional and void because of certain defects and irregularities. At the interlocutory hearing, after considering the petition and evidence submitted, the court refused the injunction prayed.
The court did not err in refusing to grant the injunction prayed for. The provision of the Constitution relating to amendment of that instrument provides that any amendment may be proposed in the Senate or House of Representatives, and that the same shall be agreed to by two-thirds of the members elected to each of the two houses. The proposed amendment shall be entered on the journals, with the yeas and nays taken thereon, and the General Assembly shall also provide for a submission of the proposed amendment to the people at the next general election; and where the people in such genera] election ratify the amendment by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Gaskins v. Dorsey
-
Cheney El Al v. Ragan, (Nos. 2546, 2575, 2587.)
...interwoven with a legislative enactment; and in that respect it differs essentially and fundamentally from the case of Gaskins v. Dorsey, 150 Ga. 638, 104 S. E. 433. The decision in that case dealt with a petition for injunction which sought to restrain the publication of a certain proclama......
-
Cheney v. Ragan
...the amendment until the electors have acted. It will be readily seen that there is a fundamental difference between the case of Gaskins v. Dorsey, supra, and the present case. election in the present case, while it might become the basis of action by the General Assembly, had in no way beco......
-
Kurt G. Kastorf, Logrolling Gets Logrolled: Same-sex Marriage, Direct Democracy, and the Single Subject Rule
...42. 45 See supra note 31 and accompanying text. 46 See, e.g., Hammond v. Clark, 71 S.E. 479, 485-86 (Ga. 1911). 47 See Gaskins v. Dorsey, 104 S.E. 433, 433-34 (Ga. 1920). 48 See O'Kelley v. Cox, 604 S.E.2d 773, 773 (Ga. 2004). 49 See infra notes 161-71 and accompanying text, and notes 223-2......