Horkan v. City Of Moultrie
| Decision Date | 13 July 1911 |
| Citation | 71 S.E. 785,136 Ga. 561 |
| Parties | HORKAN. v. CITY OF MOULTRIE et al. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
(Syllabus by the Court.)
A council of a municipality cannot make a binding contract by which it undertakes to obligate the municipality to furnish "free of charge, " for an indefinite time in the future, sufficient water for the closets in a given building situated within the corporate limits, in consideration of the owner of the building allowing the municipality to lay its sewers through his land.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Municipal Corporations, Cent. Dig. § 665; Dec. Dig. § 232.*]
Such a contract, being ultra vires and void, could not be ratified by the continued use, under the contract, of the sewer through the land by the municipality; nor would the benefit thereby received estop it from subsequently setting up the invalidity of the contract.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Municipal Corporations, Cent. Dig. §§ 684-686; Dec. Dig. § 248.*]
Error from Superior Court, Colquitt County; R. G. Mitchell, Judge.
Action by G. A. Horkan against the City of Moultrie and others. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.
Shipp & Kline, for plaintiff in error.
J. A. Wilkes, for defendants in error.
FISH, C. J. Horkan, in his petition against the city of Moultrie, alleged in substance as follows: In 1907 he was the owner of described strips of land situated within the corporate limits of the defendant city. During that year, and while he was the owner of such land, he agreed to allow the city "to put its sewers along and across said land, * * * in consideration of which the said city of Moultrie agreed to furnish to this petitioner, free of charge, sufficient water and sewer service for the purpose of water-closets in petitioner's building immediately west of said strip of land." In consideration of this contract the city laid its sewers through the land. Petitioner, relying on the contract, put closets in the building. The city used the sewers so laid continuously from 1907, and is now using the same. The city has recently presented to petitioner a bill aggregating a named amount for the water used in the closets for the months of October and November, 1909, and has notified petitioner that, unless the amount of the bill shall be paid at once, the water will be cut off from the closets. Petitioner alleged "that he and his property will be irreparably damaged if said contract is violated, " and that the city will violate the contract, unless restrained from so doing by the court. The prayer was for injunction requiring the city and its officers "to desist from cutting off the water in said building." The petition was dismissed on general demurrer, and the petitioner excepted.
1. One of the grounds urged by counsel for the defendant in error, in support of the judgment of the trial judge in sustaining the general demurrer to the petition, was that the contract set forth in the petition was void, for the reason there was no limitation fixed as to the time of its continuance. In our opinion this point was well taken. There has been, before various courts, the question of the legal power of a municipal corporation to make a contract or to grant a license extending over a period beyond the official term of the body granting the privilege or the license. The decisions on the question are not uniform. All legislative bodies are limited in their legal capacity in such a manner as not to deprive succeeding bodies of the right to deal with matters involving the same questions as they may arise from time to time in the future, and as the then present exigencies may require. The weight of authority sustains the doctrine that a municipal corporation may make a valid...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lindsey v. Guhl
...S.E.2d 234 (1960). Such a restriction may not be imposed by ordinance Code Ann. 69-202 (Rev.1967) or by contract. Horkan v. City of Moultrie, 136 Ga. 561(2), 71 S.E. 785 (1911). However, in our opinion, this principle of law has no application to the legitimate use of bond funds for an auth......
-
Southern Airways Co. v. De Kalb County
...to the lessee without charge. The county contends that this portion of the consideration is invalid, citing Horkan v. City of Moultrie, 136 Ga. 561, 71 S.E. 785, 786, which held that the council of a municipality cannot make a binding contract by which it undertakes to obligate the municipa......
-
CENTERVILLE v. WARNER ROBINS
...their legislative or governmental powers, or which shall disable them from performing their public duties." [Cit.] Horkan v. Moultrie, 136 Ga. 561, 563(1), 71 S.E. 785 (1911). See also Macon Consol. Street R. Co. v. Macon, 112 Ga. 782, 785(2), 38 S.E. 60 (1901). Compare Ga. Const. of 1983, ......
-
Cable Holdings of Battlefield, Inc. v. Cooke
...any event, cannot revive by ratification or other theory a contract which was ultra vires and void ab initio, see, e.g. Hor[k]an v. City of Moultrie, 136 Ga. 561 (1911). On May 17, 1984, the district court issued the interlocutory order that is the subject of this appeal. In the order, the ......