Gracen v. City of Savannah
| Decision Date | 17 July 1914 |
| Docket Number | 463. |
| Citation | 82 S.E. 453,142 Ga. 141 |
| Parties | GRACEN v. MAYOR AND ALDERMEN OF CITY OF SAVANNAH ET AL. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Error from Superior Court, Chatham County; W. G. Charlton, Judge.
Petition by the Solicitor General of the Eastern Circuit against the Mayor and Aldermen of the City of Savannah and others for validation of bonds, and T. B. Gracen filed objections. A judgment was entered validating the bonds, and Gracen brings error. Affirmed.
Geo. H Richter, of Savannah, for plaintiff in error.
John Rourke, Jr., D. S. Atkinson, and W. C. Hartridge, Sol. Gen all of Savannah, for defendants in error.
1. From the record and bill of exceptions the exact course of procedure in the court below is not clear. The bill of exceptions recites that the solicitor general of the Eastern circuit filed a petition against the mayor and aldermen of the city of Savannah for the validation of $200,000 of bonds and a rule nisi was issued thereon; that the plaintiff in error, alleging himself to be a citizen of the city and a resident of the county and municipality, filed objections to the validation of the bonds, and was duly made a party in the proceedings; that at the hearing of the proceedings the municipal corporation filed its answer to the petition and its demurrer to the objections of the citizen; that "after argument on the hearing of the said demurrer," the judge entered his opinion "overruling all of the objections"; and that thereafter a judgment was duly entered confirming and validating the bonds. Error is assigned on the overruling of the objections of the plaintiff in error and on entering a judgment validating the bonds. The record contains an opinion filed by the presiding judge, which begins with the recital:
"After due formalities, the question before me is whether, in view of the objections made by the intervener, an issue of bonds by the respondent shall be validated."
The objections are then grouped and discussed. The opinion closes thus:
"All of the objections are therefore overruled, and an order will be taken validating the issue of bonds."
The opinion was dated November 1, 1913. A judgment of validation was taken, dated November 3, which opens with the following recital:
"The above cause coming on regularly for trial at the time as set in the order and advertised to the public, and it appearing to the satisfaction of the court that notice of hearing has been duly published as required by law, and the mayor and aldermen of the city of Savannah having made answer thereto, and upon consideration of the proofs submitted in support of the allegations of the petition and answer, and it appearing that certain objections have [[been] filed, which have been overruled by the court, as will more fully appear by reference to the opinion of the court rendered on the 1st day of November, 1913: Therefore, upon considering the questions of law and fact in said cause," etc.
It does not appear, therefore, whether the objections were stricken on demurrer as being insufficient on their face, or whether they were heard in connection with the entire case on law and facts, and were dealt with in the light of the petition of the solicitor general and answer of the city and whatever evidence was introduced, though none is set out in the bill of exceptions. Under such facts and recitals this court will deal with the points made in the light of the entire record, rather than as being confined to the case as one strictly of sustaining a demurrer to the allegations of the objector.
2. An election held by a municipal corporation for the purpose of determining whether bonds should be issued for the purchase of a site and the erection of a public auditorium thereon was not void on the ground that this constituted two distinct and separate purposes which could not be submitted at one election and to be voted on in one ballot. A site for an auditorium is inseparably connected with the auditorium itself, and an auditorium cannot be erected without a site.
3. An allegation that the municipal authorities do not contemplate or intend to use the proceeds of any of the bonds for the purchase of a site, but contemplate and intend to use the proceeds thereof, or so much as may be necessary, for the erection of an auditorium on a site already owned by them, does not furnish ground for a refusal to validate bonds which have been authorized by an election for the purpose of selecting a site and erecting an auditorium. If the public authorities should seek to use in an unlawful manner, or for an unlawful purpose, the proceeds of the bonds thus authorized, the remedy is not by a refusal to validate the bonds for the purpose for which they were authorized.
4. Under the ruling in Gavin v. City of Atlanta, 86 Ga 132, 12 S.E. 262, and the cases following it (Floyd County v. State, 112 Ga. 794, 38...
To continue reading
Request your trial