Henderson v. Alverson
| Decision Date | 04 January 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 21454,21454 |
| Parties | Henry M. HENDERSON v. Luther ALVERSON et al. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Henry M. Henderson, pro se.
B. D. Murphy, Robert R. Harlin, Luther Alverson, Eugene Cook, Atty. Gen., Carter Goode, Asst. Atty. Gen., Donald E. Payton, Dep. Asst. Atty. Gen., Virlyn B. Moore, Ralph Pharr, Claud D. Shaw, Jr., Geo. P. Whitman, Jesse M. Wood, J. C. Tanksley, Durwood T. Pye, Stonewall Dyer, Atlanta, for defendants in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
The plaintiff brings this action alleging that he is a citizen, a taxpayer, a resident and duly qualified voter in Fulton County, and as such is interested in having the laws executed and public duties enforced. He seeks to have a Constitutional Amendment of 1956 to Article VI, Section III, Paragraph I, Code Ann. § 2-3801 (Ga.L.1956, p. 636), declared unconstitutional and void as being improperly adopted and the mode of adoption declared contrary to the United States Constitution, the Declaratory Judgment Act, Code Ann. Chapter 110-11 (Ga.L.1945, pp. 137-139; Ga.L.1959, pp. 236, 237). In the court below, the Attorney General was served and intervened under Code Ann. § 110-1106 (Ga.L.1945, pp. 137, 138). The trial judge overruled the plaintiff's objections to the allowance of the Attorney-General's demurrers and answers, and heard the argument of counsel on the demurrers. After consideration, the general demurrers of the defendant Alverson and the Attorney General were sustained. To these rulings the plaintiff Henderson assigns error.
Held:
The plaintiff alleged no deprivation of a personal right or any other interest apart from that of a member of the general public. No facts or circumstances were alleged to show any necessity for a determination of any dispute to guide and protect the plaintiff from uncertainty and insecurity with regard to the propriety of some future act or conduct which is properly incident to his alleged rights and which future action without such directions, might reasonably jeopardize his interest. State v. Hospital Authority, 213 Ga. 894, 898-899, 102 S.E.2d 543. The Declaratory Judgment Act makes no provision for a judgment which is merely advisory. Liner v. City of Rossville, 212 Ga. 664, 94 S.E.2d 862. Therefore, the petition sets forth no ground for a declaration of rights under the act. Brown v. Cobb County, 212 Ga. 172, 175, 91 S.E.2d 516; McCallum v. Quarles, 214 Ga. 192, 104 S.E.2d 105; Pinkard v. Mendel, 216 Ga. 487, 490, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
LaSalle Nat. Ins. Co. v. Popham
...S.E.2d 105; Rowan v. Herring, 214 Ga. 370, 374, 105 S.E.2d 29; Pinkard v. Mendel, 216 Ga. 487, 490, 117 S.E.2d 366; Henderson v. Alverson, 217 Ga. 541, 542, 123 S.E.2d 721; Dunn v. Campbell, 219 Ga. 412, 415, 134 S.E.2d 20; Milton Frank Allen Publications Inc. et al. v. Ga. Assn. of Petrole......
-
Avery v. Paulding Cnty. Airport Auth.
...SJN Properties v. Fulton County Bd. of Assessors, 296 Ga. 793, 802-803 (2) (b) (iii), 770 S.E.2d 832 (2015).In Henderson v. Alverson, 217 Ga. 541, 123 S.E.2d 721 (1962), the plaintiff sought declaratory relief as "a citizen, a taxpayer, a resident and duly qualified voter in Fulton County."......
-
SJN Props., LLC v. Fulton Cnty. Bd. of Assessors
...or insecurity with respect to their voting rights, nor any risk stemming from undirected future action”); Henderson v. Alverson, 217 Ga. 541, 123 S.E.2d 721 (1962) (declaratory judgment action could not be maintained where plaintiff failed to allege need for guidance as to his future conduc......
-
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Hillhouse
...105, supra; Rowan v. Herring, 214 Ga. 370, 374, 105 S.E.2d 29; Pinkard v. Mendel, 216 Ga. 487, 490, 117 S.E.2d 336; Henderson v. Alverson, 217 Ga. 541, 542, 123 S.E.2d 721; Dunn v. Campbell, 219 Ga. 412, 415, 134 S.E.2d 20; Milton Frank Allen Pubs. v. Ga. Assn. of Petroleum Retailers, 219 G......