Goolsby v. Stephens
| Decision Date | 04 May 1923 |
| Docket Number | 3302,3303. |
| Parties | GOOLSBY ET AL. v. STEPHENS ET AL. STEPHENS ET AL. v. GOOLSBY ET AL. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
Under article 7, § 7, par. 1, of the Constitution of this state (Civil Code 1910, § 6563), as amended (Acts 1918, p. 99), no municipality can incur any new debt, except for temporary loan or loans to supply casual deficiencies of revenue, not to exceed one-fifth of 1 per centum of the assessed value of the taxable property therein, without the assent of two-thirds of the qualified voters thereof voting at an election for that purpose, and said two-thirds so voting must be a majority of the registered voters of said municipality.
Under this constitutional provision there must be a registration of the qualified voters in such municipality, and where an election is held for the purpose of issuing bonds, in the absence of provision for such registration and of such registration, such election is null and void, as it is impossible to determine, without such registration, that a majority of the registered voters of the municipality have given their assent to the creation of such indebtedness.
Under said constitutional provision, all laws, charter provisions and ordinances heretofore passed for special registration of the voters of counties, municipal corporations, and other political divisions of this state, to pass upon the issuance of bonds by said divisions, are null and void, and the General Assembly is without power to pass any law providing for such special registration, but can only provide for general registrations to cover all elections in such political divisions.
Under the above rulings it follows that the election held in the city of Forsyth to determine whether or not bonds should be issued for paving streets and sidewalks of said city was null and void, because at the time of the election there was no legal registration of the qualified voters of said city, and no provision of law for such registration, the general county registration not being applicable to such elections.
The court erred in ruling, under this constitutional provision that resort should be had to the tally sheets of the last general election held in said city, to determine whether two-thirds of the qualified voters had voted in favor of the issuance of said bonds, and, as said election was void, the judge likewise erred in requiring, by a mandamus absolute the mayor and aldermen of said city to declare the result of said election.
Additional Syllabus by Editorial Staff.
Const. art. 3, § 7, par. 8, providing that no law or ordinance shall refer to more than one subject-matter, or contain matter different from that expressed in the title, does not apply to acts proposing amendments to the Constitution.
Under Const. art. 13, § 1, par. 1, providing for submission of amendments, entire amendment need not be printed on ballot, but only reference thereto sufficient to enable voters to ascertain the amendment, but the amendment adopted is that proposed, and not merely the part printed on the ballot.
The amendment to Const. art. 7, § 7, par. 1, proposed by Act Aug. 20, 1918, § 1 (Acts 1918, p. 99), held properly submitted, in view of section 3, though only portion of the proposed amendment was printed on the ballots.
Error from Superior Court, Monroe County; W. E. H. Searcy, Jr., Judge.
Suit by R. B. Stephens and others for mandamus against the Mayor and Aldermen of the City of Forsyth and others, in which R. C. Goolsby, Sr., and others, intervened as defendants. Judgment granting mandamus, and the interveners bring error, and plaintiffs bring a cross-bill of exceptions. Reversed on main bill of exceptions, and affirmed on the cross-bill.
R. B. Stephens and others filed their petition for mandamus against the mayor and aldermen of the city of Forsyth and made this case: They are citizens and taxpayers of said city. James A. Tribble is mayor, and L. O. Hollis and five others are aldermen, thereof. On April 24, 1922, an election was held in said city to determine the question whether bonds should be issued by said municipality for street improvements. Said election was held under the same rules and regulations as govern elections for officers of said city. The returns of said election were made to the mayor and aldermen, who consolidated them. There were 267 votes cast in favor of bonds, and 100 votes against bonds. All citizens of said city who have resided in the county of Monroe for 6 months immediately next preceding the election, and within the limits of the city for 30 days immediately preceding the election, who are entitled to vote for members of the General Assembly, and have paid all taxes required of them by said city which may be due, are qualified to vote. No authority to require registration has been conferred on said city by its charter, and there is no ordinance requiring or providing for registration of voters. In 1920 the list of the then qualified voters of the Forsyth district of Monroe county was made up and filed with the clerk of the superior court as required by law, which was the official list of such voters, subject to be increased by addition of voters who might register and qualify under the general laws, and to be decreased by such voters as might subsequently become disqualified by death, removal from the county, nonpayment of taxes, or other legal causes. Said city lies wholly within said Forsyth district, and said district embraces territory and voters other than those who reside in said city. From this general official list of registered voters the mayor and aldermen caused to be made up a list of all voters residing within the limits of Forsyth, and notation made thereon of all voters who since their registration had become disqualified to vote in said municipality. Said list was made solely for the convenience of the managers of said election in determining whether a voter was qualified or not. Said list showed 550 registered voters within said city, and showed that of this number 44 were disqualified to vote in said bond election, for the reason that at the time of the election they did not reside in said city, or had failed to pay taxes due the state and county for 1921, and there were two voters on said list who had failed to pay their city taxes for said year, making a total of 46 voters originally on said list who had since become disqualified and had not qualified up to the time the polls closed. The last general election held in said city prior to this election was on the first Wednesday in December, 1921, being the regular election for mayor and aldermen, the tally sheets of which show that there were only 49 votes cast. In said bond election there were 367 votes cast, of which 267 were in favor of bonds and 100 against bonds. The 267 votes in favor of bonds were a majority of the qualified voters of said city, as shown by the tally sheets of the last preceding general election, and a majority of the legally registered and qualified voters of said city, as shown by the registration list prepared for this election by the mayor and aldermen of the city. It is the duty of the mayor and aldermen to declare the result of said election in favor of the issuance of said bonds, which they have failed and refused to do. Plaintiffs pray for a mandamus requiring them to declare the result of said election in favor of the issuance of said bonds.
The defendants demurred to said petition, on the grounds: (1) That it "fails to set out a cause of action authorizing the issuing of the writ of mandamus"; (2) "that it fails to allege that a majority of the registered voters of the county voted for the bonds, this being absolutely necessary under the requirements of the Constitution of the state, as amended in 1918"; (3) because the petition shows that there were 550 registered voters in the city of Forsyth, as shown by the registration list used by the managers in said election, and only 267 voted for the bonds this not being a majority of the registered voters; (4) because the petition asks that mandamus issue compelling the mayor and aldermen to declare a particular result as the result of said election. The judge made no ruling sustaining or overruling the demurrer. In their answer the defendants denied that the list of registered voters prepared by the mayor and aldermen for said election showed any disqualifications of voters, and alleged it showed 554 registered voters in the city. They further alleged that for want of information they could neither admit nor deny the allegation that the tally sheets of the general election for mayor and aldermen in December, 1921, showed there were only 49 votes cast in said election. They admitted they made from the general registration books the list of all the registered voters of said city and furnished the same to the managers of said bond election; and all parties agreed that it should be taken as correct and used as the proper registration list for said election, and there was no other evidence before said managers as to the number of registered voters in the city. After the returns were made to the mayor and aldermen, the plaintiffs filed with the mayor and aldermen a request that they purge said registration list and strike therefrom the names of some 40-odd voters, in order to make it appear that said 267 persons voting for bonds constituted a majority of the registered voters of the city, which the mayor and aldermen, by a vote of 4 to 2, refused to do. A motion was then made to declare the result of said election in accordance with said registration list, when the mayor, who was presiding, arbitrarily refused to entertain the motion, and the meeting...
To continue reading
Request your trial