Houston County v. Peach County
| Citation | 149 S.E. 219,168 Ga. 813 |
| Decision Date | 20 July 1929 |
| Docket Number | 6879,6901. |
| Parties | HOUSTON COUNTY v. PEACH COUNTY. PEACH COUNTY v. HOUSTON COUNTY. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Georgia |
Syllabus by the Court.
Under the act of 1924 (Ga. Laws 1924, p. 39), proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the state of Georgia, by which the county of Peach was created from territory originally embraced within the counties of Houston and Macon which act was subsequently ratified by a vote of the people of the state on November 4, 1924, it was provided that "all ad valorem and special taxes and all other revenues realized for the year in which this amendment is adopted or ratified by the qualified voters of this state shall be applied to any indebtedness except bonded indebtedness due and owing by either of the counties from which the said Peach county is created; it being the purpose of this provision to fix the basis of settlement between the counties involved upon their financial condition on the 31st day of December next following the ratification of this amendment." On August 16, 1926, Houston county brought suit against Peach county under the authority conferred by the act of 1924 supra, alleging that the total indebtedness of Houston county on December 31, 1924, amounted to $268,493.20; that the taxes realized for the year 1924 amounted to $211,135.58; that the difference amounted to $57,357.62, and that the county of Houston is entitled to a judgment against Peach county for the latter's proportionate part of the amount, which was alleged to be $14,615.78; and that a written demand was made by Houston county on Peach county for that amount on December 22, 1925, and payment was refused. In an amendment to plaintiff's petition it is alleged that the unpaid taxes on the tax digest of Houston county for 1924, and not "realized" until the year 1925, amounted to $75,086.14. Construing the allegations of the petition to mean that the ""financial condition" on December 31, 1924, as a basis of settlement between the counties involved, was sufficient to pay the legal indebtedness of Houston county for the year 1924, even though some of the taxes levied for the year 1924 were not collected until the year 1925, the petition did not set out a cause of action against Peach county.
Error from Superior Court, Peach County; Malcolm D. Jones, Judge.
Suit by Houston County against Peach County. To review a judgment dismissing the petition, plaintiff brings error, and defendant files cross-bill of exceptions. Affirmed on main bill of exceptions, and cross-bill dismissed.
C. E Brunson and Duncan & Nunn, all of Perry, and Hall, Grice & Bloch, of Macon, for plaintiff in error.
W. H Harris, of Ft. Valley, for defendant in error.
Houston county brought suit against Peach county for the sum of $57,357.62. The suit was brought under authority of the act of 1924, creating the county of Peach (Ga. Laws 1924, p. 39 et seq.), and there are numerous voluminous exhibits attached to the petition and amendments, showing how the indebtedness arose, all of which it is unnecessary to set out in detail. It appears from the petition that there were certain taxes, amounting to approximately $75,000, which were due in the year 1924, but not collected on December 31, 1924, the date the settlement between the counties was to take effect, and this sum was not taken into consideration in arriving at the indebtedness due by Peach county. One ground of the demurrer raises the point that Peach county is entitled to this credit, and, if it is allowed, instead of Peach county being indebted to Houston county, the latter county will have a surplus in its treasury of some $17,000, and, these facts appearing in the petition, it sets out no cause of action. The demurrer was sustained and the petition dismissed, which judgment is excepted to. This is the controlling question in this case.
By section 1 of the constitutional amendment under which Peach county was created it is provided: "It is especially provided that all ad valorem and special taxes and all other revenues realized for the year in which this amendment is adopted or ratified by the qualified voters of this state shall be applied to any indebtedness, except bonded indebtedness due and owing by either of the counties from which the said Peach county is created; it being the purpose of this provision to fix the basis of settlement between the counties involved upon their financial condition on the 31st day of December next following the ratification of this amendment." The amendment to the Constitution, creating the county of Peach, was ratified on November 4, 1924. The defendant filed a cross-bill of exceptions, alleging error in the overruling of certain special demurrers. The bill of exceptions recites that the court below, after considering the original petition and amendments thereto, and the defendant's demurrer, passed an order sustaining the defendant's general demurrer to the petition as amended, and dismissed it, "on the sole ground that no indebtedness was shown by the petition as amended, and no cause of action was therefore set out in the petition as amended." It was to this ruling of the court, sustaining the general demurrer and dismissing the petition as amended, that the plaintiff excepted.
An amendment to the Constitution of Georgia was proposed in 1924 (Ga. Laws 1924, p. 39), creating a new county, to be named Peach county, from territory originally embraced within the counties of Houston and Macon. The amending act passed the General Assembly, and was subsequently ratified by a vote of the people of the state of Georgia on November 1, 1924. The act of 1924 declares that "all ad valorem and all special taxes and all other revenues realized for the year in which this amendment is adopted or ratified by the qualified voters of this state shall be applied to any indebtedness, except bonded indebtedness due and owing by either of the counties from which the said Peach county is created; it being the purpose of this provision to fix the basis of settlement between the counties involved upon their financial condition on the 31st day of December next...
To continue reading
Request your trial