Hardin v. Croft
| Decision Date | 11 July 1950 |
| Docket Number | No. 17127,17127 |
| Citation | 60 S.E.2d 395,207 Ga. 115 |
| Parties | HARDIN v. CROFT. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Pierce Bros., Augusta, for plaintiff in error.
W. D. Lanier, Augusta, for defendant in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
1. When the question of the power of the County Commissioners of Roads and Revenues of Richmond County, Georgia, to make any exception with respect to the status of a particular district or area already zoned, by amending or repealing in whole or in part a zoning ordinance enacted in accordance with the authority delegated by the act of 1938, Ga.L.1937-38, p. 414 as amended by the act of 1939, Ga.L.1939, p. 406, was previously before this court, it was held that the said Commissioners of Richmond County were without authority to amend a valid zoning ordinance by rezoning an isolated strip of a previously zoned area so as to permit it to be used for a purpose prohibited by the prior zoning ordinance. Barton v. Hardin, 204 Ga. 108, 48 S.E.2d 882.
2. While the amendment of the foregoing zoning statutes by the act approved February 25, 1949, Ga.L.1949, p. 1878, which provides 'that any said district or zone created hereby may be unzoned upon the written petition of fifty-one per cent of the real property owners in said zone or district,' authorized the commissioners to 'unzone' any 'zone' or 'district' previously zoned, upon the written petition of 51 per cent of the real property owners in the zoned district, the commissioners are still without authority to amend a previously adopted valid zoning ordinance by rezoning the same isolated strip involved in the Barton v. Hardin case, supra, consisting of approximately one acre, fronting 130 feet on one road and 136 feet on another road, so as to permit it to be used for a purpose prohibited by the provisions of the prior general zoning ordinance covering an area approximately 2 miles long and 1600 feet wide. Snow v. Johnston, 197 Ga. 146, 159, 28 S.E.2d 270; 58 Am.Jur. 965, § 39.
3. A property owner residing in that portion of a county in which a zoning ordinance is of force may properly apply for an injunction against the construction of a building to be used in the operation of a business within the zoned area, in violation of the zoning ordinance, Snow v. Johnston, 197 Ga. 146(1), 28 S.E.2d 270, and is not relegated to a writ of certiorari to review an action of the zoning authority alleged to be void. The writ of certiorari will not lie when the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Humthlett v. Reeves
...involved thereunder be valid, the trial court should have enjoined its use for the establishment of a cemetery thereon. Hardin v. Croft, 207 Ga. 115(3), 60 S.E.2d 395. The defendants insist, and the trial court held, that the act of 1937, supra, was void because the act approved August 15, ......
-
Sirota v. Kay Homes, Inc.
...v. Gilbert, 189 Ga. 756, 8 S.E.2d 45; Georgia Public Service Comm. v. Atlanta Gas Light Co., 205 Ga. 863, 55 S.E.2d 618; Hardin v. Croft, 207 Ga. 115, 60 S.E.2d 395. 3. It is essential to the validity of a municipal ordinance rezoning realty that notice be given, and opportunity for hearing......
-
East Lands, Inc. v. Floyd County
...to spot zone, these cases are overruled. Cf. Orr v. Hapeville Realty Invest. Co., 211 Ga. 235, 85 S.E.2d 20 (1954); Hardin v. Croft, 207 Ga. 115, 60 S.E.2d 395 (1950); Snow v. Johnston, 197 Ga. 146, 28 S.E.2d 270 (1943). Crawford v. Brewster, 225 Ga. 404(4), 169 S.E.2d 317 (1969) and Vulcan......
-
Palmer v. Tomlinson
...special damages.' White v. Griggs, 210 Ga. 364, 366, 80 S.E.2d 163, 165; Snow v. Johnston, 197 Ga. 146, 28 S.E.2d 270; Hardin v. Croft, 207 Ga. 115(3), 60 S.E.2d 395; Reed v. White, 207 Ga. 623(2), 63 S.E.2d 597; Sirota v. Kay Homes Inc., supra. The above authorities, being full-bench decis......