Holtzclaw v. Riley

• Decision Date: 20 July 1901
• Citation: 113 Ga. 1023,39 S.E. 425
• Parties: HOLTZCLAW et al. v. RILEY, Judge. RILEY, Judge. v. HOLTZCLAW et al.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

39 S.E. 425

113 Ga. 1023

HOLTZCLAW et al.

v.RILEY, Judge.

RILEY, Judge.

v.HOLTZCLAW et al.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

July 20, 1901.

MANDAMUS TO COUNTY JUDGE.

1. A writ of mandamus will not be issued against a public officer to compel the performance by him of acts which do not come within his official duties.

2. Where a board of county commissioners is invested with the full management and control of certain matters with which the county judge, as such, has nothing to do, but to a part of which he is attending as the agent of the board of commissioners, mandamus will not lie against such county judge to compel him to perform certain acts in connection with such matters, when these acts, if required at all by law, are required of the board of commissioners.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error from superior court, Houston county; W. H. Felton, Judge.

Petition by R. N. Holtzclaw and others for a writ of mandamus against A. C. Riley, judge. From the judgment both parties bring error. Judgment on cross bill reversed; on main bill dismissed.

R. N. Holtzclaw, for petitioners.

C. E. Brunson, for respondent.

SIMMONS, C. J. The sheriff of Houston county and the solicitor of the county court filed a petition for mandamus against the county judge to compel him to pay to petitioners named amounts as fees out of moneys in his hands, received as compensation for the labor of convicts hired out by him for Houston county to the county of Dooly. There was no dispute as to the facts, and the Judge rendered judgment in favor of the petitioners for an amount less than that claimed. To this judgment all parties excepted; the peti tioners to the failure to grant all of the relief prayed, and the respondent to the judgment against him which was rendered. Counsel argued before this court several interesting questions as to the amount and payment of the fees of the sheriff and the solicitor of the county court in criminal cases, but, under the view we take of the case, this court cannot now determine them. The money in the hands of the respondent was compensation for the labor of misdemeanor convicts. Under the law the board of county commissioners is invested with full authority to lease and hire out these convicts, and to receive and dispose of the fund arising as compensation for the services of the convicts. Pen. Code, § 1097. With these matters the county judge, as such, has absolutely nothing to do. It appears that the board of commissioners did turn over to him the convicts of the...