Hope v. Mayor of Gainesville

• Decision Date: 15 April 1884
• Citation: 72 Ga. 246
• Parties: HOPE et al. v. THE MAYOR, ETC., OF GAINESVILLE.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

72 Ga. 246

HOPE et al. v. THE MAYOR, ETC., OF GAINESVILLE.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

April 15, 1884

February Term, 1884.

1. Where it appears from the whole of a legislative act that the great purpose and object was to create a corporation to lay out and construct a railroad between certain points, any instrumentality authorized by the act in aid of, to conduce to, and to assist the one great purpose of the act, is not a different subject-matter; and the act is not unconstitutional as containing more than one subject-matter or matter different from that expressed in the title. Therefore the inclusion in the act of 1872, to incorporate the Gainesville Jefferson and Southern Railroad, and for other purposes therewith connected, of a provision that any corporate town or city of this state interested in the construction of said road might subscribe to the capital stock of the company by an election to be held for that purpose, and that the subscription of the city of Gainesville to the Gainesville and Jefferson Railroad is legalized and confirmed as a subscription to the Gainesville, Jefferson and Southern Railroad Company, did not render it unconstitutional.

( a. ) The objection should be serious and the conflict between the statute and the constitution plain and unmistakable before the judiciary should disregard a legislative enactment upon the ground that it embraced more than one object, or if but one object, it was not sufficiently expressed in the title.

2. Where such an act was on its passage before the legislature at the same time with an amendment to the charter of the city of Gainesville, by which it was provided that the city council should have power to issue the bonds or notes, or both, of said city for the purpose of improving its streets and promoting its growth and advancement and educational facilities, and all the property of said city should be bound for their redemption, provided that the debt of said city should at no time exceed $35,000, such acts did not conflict with each other. The amendment to the city charter, in limiting the debt of the city, had reference to a debt or debts incurred for improving the streets, etc., as mentioned therein, and not to subscriptions to the corporate stock of this railroad. The amendment to the city charter having been approved the day after the charter of the railroad, did not repeal or render illegal the provisions of the other act.

( a. ) The act of February 22, 1873, removes all doubt by amending the act limiting the city's indebtedness and providing that no part thereof should be construed to affect in any manner the city's subscription to the stock of the railroad.

3. Equity seeks to do full and complete justice, and all parties interested in the subject-matter of a suit should be made parties thereto. The injunction could have been refused for want of proper parties, the holders of bonds, the payment of which it was sought to enjoin, not being parties

Constitutional Law. Laws. Charters. Railroads. Municipal Corporations. Before Judge STEWART. Hall County. At Chambers. January 24 1884.

Hope et al., filed their bill against the Mayor and Council of the city of Gainesville, alleging that they were citizens and tax-payers of that place; that on or about July 1, 1880, defendants issued city bonds to the amount of $30,000.00, and on or about August 5, 1881, they issued other bonds to the amount of $20,000.00; that all of these were issued to pay a subscription of the city of Gainesville to the stock of the Gainesville, Jefferson and Southern Railroad; that the bonds are held by persons unknown to complainants; that defendants are preparing to pay the first installment of interest on these bonds to the amount of $1,750.00; and that the subscription to the stock was illegal and invalid, and the bonds void. The prayer was for injunction to prevent the defendants from paying the interest on the bonds, or from assessing a tax to pay the principal or interest on the bonds, and for subpœ na and general relief. The legal principles pressed before the Supreme Court are stated in the decision.

Defendants answered; and on the hearing, upon the bill, answer and numerous affidavits pro and con, the chancellor refused the injunction, and complainants excepted.

GEO. N & D. P. LESTER; W. F. FINDLEY, for plaintiffs in error.

HOPKINS & GLENN, for defendants.

BLANDFORD Justice.

The question presented by this record is, whether the act to incorporate the Gainesville, Jefferson and Southern Railroad Company, and for other purposes therewith connected, approved August 23, 1872, is constitutional or not. The act provides for the incorporation of certain persons and such others as may be associated with them as a body corporate by the name of the Gainesville, Jefferson and Southern Railroad Company that they may hold and convey real estate. The 5th section of the act provides that they may survey, lay out and construct a railroad from the city of Gainesville, in Hall county, by way of Jefferson, in the county of Jackson, to some point they may select on the Georgia Railroad or on the Athens Branch Road. And by the ninth section of this act it is further provided, that any corporate town or city of this state, interested in the construction of said road, may subscribe to the capital stock of said company, by an election to be held in said city or town, as provided by the constitution. And the subscription of the city of Gainesville to the Gainesville and Jefferson Railroad is legalized and confirmed as a subscription to the Gainesville, Jefferson and Southern Railroad Company.

Before the passage of this act, the people of Gainesville had, by a vote authorized by a resolution of the mayor and council,...