Geele v. State

• Decision Date: 12 June 1947
• Docket Number: 15814.
• Citation: 43 S.E.2d 254,202 Ga. 381
• Parties: GEELE et al. v. STATE.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

43 S.E.2d 254

202 Ga. 381

GEELE et al. v. STATE.

No. 15814.

Supreme Court of Georgia

June 12, 1947

Syllabus by the Court.

The provisions of the act approved August 15, 1910, Ga.L.1910 pp. 88, 89, requiring hotels and inns three stories in height and over to provide fire escapes on the outside of such buildings, and providing that the violation thereof shall be a misdemeanor, and that the act shall include only hotels and inns charging patrons or guests $2 per day and more, offends the equal-protection provision of the State and Federal Constitutions, in that the classification is arbitrary, since it is based upon the amount charged the guests and bears no conceivable relation to the purpose of the law, which is the protection of the guests against the danger of fire. The court erred in overruling the demurrer to the indictment based upon this law, which challenged the act upon the ground that it is unconstitutional, in that it offends the equal-protection clause of the State and Federal Constitutions.

An indictment in Fulton Superior Court against A. F. Geele, Sr. A. F. Geele, Jr., and R. E. O'Connell charged the defendants with involuntary manslaughter in the following manner: 'Accused did operate and maintain for profit a hotel known as the Winecoff Hotel, in the City of Atlanta Georgia, said county, said hotel being fifteen stories in height, and operated for the accommodation of the public having rooms sufficient to accommodate several hundred paying guests, accused charging their patrons and guests two dollars per day or upwards, and did maintain and operate said hotel contrary to law, in that said hotel was not provided with any fire escape on the outside of the hotel building connected on each floor above the first and accessible to the occupants of all floors above the first floor; said hotel not having any fire escape of any kind on the outside of said building. On the date aforesaid, said J. R. Moody was a paying guest to whom accused had rented a room in said hotel, and said J. R. Moody while in said hotel on a floor or story above the third floor of said hotel, was killed by reason of a fire which swept through the corridors, hallways, floors, and rooms of said hotel, scorching, burning, and consuming great portions of the interior thereof; said J. R. Moody in an effort to escape therefrom and save his life did fall from a story or floor above the third floor of said hotel onto the ground beneath, causing serious wounds and bruises upon his person from which he died; the death of said J. R. Moody being the result of and caused by the unlawful act of accused persons in operating and maintaining said hotel building as aforesaid, which unlawful act of accused was wilfully and wantonly engaged in by them in disregard of the probable effects of the absence of such fire escape on the outside of said hotel building; accused well knowing that the probable consequence thereof might be danger to the lives of guests in said hotel in and by fire therein; all of said acts of accused being contrary to the laws of said State, the good order, peace and dignity thereof.'

The defendants jointly demurred to the indictment, the demurrer being as follows: '1. The accused demur to said indictment upon the ground that the allegations therein do not charge the accused with any offense under the law, and under the allegations therein the accused are not guilty of any offense under the laws of the State of Georgia. 2. The said indictment charges the accused with the commission of involuntary manslaughter by the killing of a human being in the commission of an unlawful act. The alleged unlawful act set out in the indictment is that the accused did operate a hotel without outside fire escapes and did charge the patrons of said hotel in excess of two dollars ($2) per day. The only law or purported law in the State of Georgia requiring outside fire escapes under such circumstances is that law appearing in the Georgia Code of 1933 at sections 52-201, 52-205, and 52-9902. Said Code sections, in so far as they require outside fire escapes on hotels which charge patrons in excess of two dollars ($2) per day are unconstitutional and void and without legal force and effect, for the following reasons: (a) The said statute was enacted for the purpose of protecting the welfare and safety of hotel patrons and guests. By its terms, however, it excepts from its operation all hotels or inns charging guests or patrons less than two dollars ($2) per day. Accused aver that said classification is unreasonable and arbitrary and bears no reasonable relation to the purpose of said legislation; that it bears no reasonable relation to the protection of the public or of patrons or guests of hotels or inns; that it bears no reasonable relation to any other thing or matter within the police power of the State of Georgia, and for these reasons said statute deprives the accused, and each of them, of their property and liberty without due process of law, and in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, wherein it is provided that no State shall deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law. (b) Likewise, and for similar reasons, the said statute is violative of article I, section I, paragraph III (Code, 2-103) of the Constitution of the State of Georgia, wherein it is provided that no person shall be deprived of liberty or property without due process of law. (c) The said statute and the portion thereof which seeks to require outside fire escapes only upon hotels and inns charging patrons and guests more than two dollars ($2) per day is arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable, in that the classification, based solely upon the charge to patrons and guests, bears no reasonable relation to the subject-matter and purpose of the legislation; that it bears no reasonable relation to the protection and safety of the public or hotel patrons and guests; that it bears no reasonable relation to any other matter or thing within the police power of the State of Georgia, and said statute is discriminatory and denies the accused and each of them the equal protection of the laws in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, wherein it is provided that no State shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. (d) Likewise, and for similar reasons, the said paragraph is violative of Article I, section I, paragraph II (Code, 2-102) of the Constitution of the State of Georgia, wherein it is provided that the protection of person and property is the paramount duty of government and shall be impartial and complete. The accused, and each of them, pray that each and every ground of the foregoing demurrer be inquired into and sustained; that said Code sections be declared unconstitutional as in violation of the Constitution of the United States and of the State of Georgia, as hereinabove set out, and the said indictment be quashed, as to each and all of the accused, upon all the grounds above specified.'

The judgment overruling the demurrer was as follows: 'The within demurrers to the indictment in the above-stated case coming on for hearing, after argument and consideration, it is considered, ordered and adjudged that the general and special demurrers be and are hereby overruled on each and every ground.' (Citing cases) The exception here is to the judgment overruling the demurrer.

Smith, Kilpatrick, Cody, Rogers & McClatchey, and E. D. Smith, Jr., all of Atlanta, for plaintiffs in error.

E. E. Andrews and Paul Webb, Sols.Gen., and J. Walter Le Craw, all of Atlanta, for defendant in error.

DUCKWORTH, Presiding Justice (after stating the foregoing facts).

The Constitutional question here presented is clearly made and calls for a forthright decision. The statute upon which the constitutional attacks are made is section 4, 5, and 6 of the act of 1910, Ga.L.1910, pp. 88, 89. The ground of attack is that the statute is discriminatory against hotels and inns charging their guests $2 and more, to which the law applies, and in favor of hotels and inns charging their guests less than $2, which are exempt from the requirement of the law that fire escapes on the outside be provided, and that a failure to conform to this requirement is a misdemeanor.

The applicable rule of law, which is the recognized standard by which classification by legislation must be tested, may be stated succinctly as follows. The basis for classification must...