Hardy v. Mayor

• Decision Date: 12 November 1904
• Citation: 121 Ga. 327,48 S.E. 921
• Parties: HARDY v. MAYOR, ETC., OF CITY OF GAINESVILLE.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

48 S.E. 921

121 Ga. 327

HARDY

v.MAYOR, ETC., OF CITY OF GAINESVILLE.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Nov. 12, 1904.

MUNICIPALITIES—CONTRACTS—VALIDITY— INTEREST OF PUBLIC OFFICER.

1. A contract entered into between a private corporation and the city of Gainesville, under which the former is to perform certain work, for which payment is to be made out of the city treasury, is void if at the time of its execution one of the members of the city council was also a stockholder in such private corporation.

¶ 1. See Municipal Corporations, vol. 36, Cent. Dig. § 661.

2. Such a contract does not become valid and legal when subsequently the interested member of council sells the stock which he owned at the time of the execution of the contract

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error from Superior Court, Hall County; J. J. Kimsey, Judge.

Action by A. S. Hardy against the mayor and council of the city of Gainesville. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff brings error. Reversed.

Parks & Gaillard, for plaintiff in error.

H. H. Dean and W. S. Pickrell, for defendants in error.

SIMMONS, C. J. In January, 1904, the mayor and council of the city of Gainesville awarded to a publishing company, a private corporation, the contract for the printing for the city for the year 1904. At the time this was done, one of the members of the city council owned some stock in the publishing company. This stock he disposed of, and had transferred to another, in May of the same year. Subsequently a citizen and taxpayer brought an equitable petition to restrain the municipal authorities from giving any work to the publishing company under the contract above mentioned, the petitioner claiming that the contract was void. On the interlocutory hearing the judge refused the injunction prayed, and the petitioner excepted.

We think that the contract entered into between the city and the publishing company was void. It was contrary to public policy, as declared in the Code and in the charter of the city of Gainesville. While generally "a contract otherwise fair is not rendered void by the fact that the contract-ing parties consist of corporations having the same persons or officers in each" (Civ. Code 1895, § 1857), the rule is different where the contract is for the performance of work for which payment is to be made out of the city treasury, and where one of the city's officers is interested in the contract. Not only does our Political Code of 1895 (section 751) make it illegal for a member of a city council to...