Hunter v. City of Atlanta
| Decision Date | 13 February 1956 |
| Docket Number | No. 19207,19207 |
| Citation | 212 Ga. 179,91 S.E.2d 338 |
| Parties | M. E. HUNTER et al. v. CITY OF ATLANTA et al. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
The trial judge did not err in dismissing the petition on general demurrer.
Willingham, Gortatowsky & Morrison, Atlanta, for plaintiffs in error.
J. C. Savage, J. C. Murphy, J. M. B. Bloodworth, Henry L. Bowden, Newell Edenfield, Robert S. Wiggins, Atlanta, for defendants in error.
1. Code, § 55-102.
The above Code section states the general rule. City of Douglas v. South Georgia Grocery Co., 178 Ga. 657, 174 S.E. 127; Jewel Tea Co. v. City Council of Augusta, 183 Ga. 817, 190 S.E. 1; Mather Bros., Inc., v. City of Dawson, 188 Ga. 450, 4 S.E.2d 165; Newman v. Aldredge, 210 Ga. 765, 82 S.E.2d 823. The general rule does not apply where a criminal prosecution illegally threatens irreparable injury or destruction of private property, and where the petitioner has no adequate remedy at law. In such cases equity will restrain a criminal prosecution. Chaires v. City of Atlanta, 164 Ga. 755, 139 S.E. 559, 55 A.L.R. 230; Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. City of Columbus, 189 Ga. 458, 6 S.E.2d 320; Moultrie Milk Shed, Inc., v. City of Cairo, 206 Ga. 348, 57 S.E.2d 199.
Equity will not enjoin the enforcement of an alleged unconstitutional law or ordinance where the petitioner fails to show that its enforcement would result in an infringement upon his rights. Plumb v. Christie, 103 Ga. 686, 30 S.E. 759, 42 L.R.A. 181; Associated Cab Co. v. City of Atlanta, 204 Ga. 591, 50 S.E.2d 601. Whether or not the petitioners in the present case are entitled to relief in a court of equity depends upon the status of the billboards erected upon their property.
The City of Atlanta has constitutional and statutory power to enact zoning regulations. Constitution, art. III, sec. VII, par. XXIII, Code Ann. § 2-1923; Ga.L.1946, p. 191, Code Ann.Supp. Chapter 69-8; Ga.L.1952, p. 2731; Orr v. Hapeville Realty Investments, 211 Ga. 235, 85 S.E.2d 20.
The petitioners allege that they have 'complied' with the applicable provisions of certain pleaded ordinances of the city, and they contend that, even if it be found that they have 'violated any of the provisions' of the applicable ordinances, there is no authority for the city to stop the erection of the signs, for the petitioners have 'substantially complied' with the applicable provisions of the pleaded ordinances. The sufficiency of these allegations to show compliance with the ordinances of the city, on general demurrer, need not be determined. The petitioners are not relying upon a compliance with the pleaded ordinances and with the act of the General Assembly approved March 7, 1955, Ga.L.1955, p. 3080, which requires in § 3 thereof that 'The Building Official shall receive applications required by the Building Code, issue permits and furnish the prescribed certificates.' Under the pleaded ordinances and the amendment to the charter of the City of Atlanta, the authority to issue building permits is vested solely in the Building Official of the City of Atlanta. The petitioners show that they do not have a building permit from the building official of the city, but on the contrary, they are relying upon a resolution adopted by the board of aldermen, approved May 17, 1955, and repealed on June 20, 1955.
In the present case the resolution adopted by the board of aldermen did not have the effect of an ordinance in conflict with the general ordinances of the city. The power to enact ordinances for the City of Atlanta is vested in the mayor and general council, composed of councilmen and aldermen. The resolution adopted by the board of aldermen is not a special ordinance.
The powers of public officers are defined by law, and persons dealing with public officers must take notice of the extent of their powers. Code, § 89-903; Morris Plan Bank of Georgia v. Simmons, 201 Ga. 157, 171, 39 S.E.2d 166. The illegal and unauthorized attempt on the part of the board of aldermen to assume an authority not vested in them by law will not relieve...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cantrell v. Mayor and Council of Mt. Airy, s. 21901
...v. City of College Park, 102 Ga.App. 10(2), 115 S.E.2d 469. See as to the failure to allege a property right: Hunter v. City of Atlanta, 212 Ga. 179(1), 91 S.E.2d 338. While in City of Atlanta v. Gate City Gas Light Co., 71 Ga. 106, 107(5) equity ignored the criminal feature of the case and......
-
City of Las Vegas v. Nevada Industries, Inc., 18491
...any limitation on the fines imposed, that clause is void. Id. Municipal ordinances must not be oppressive. Hunter v. City of Atlanta, 212 Ga. 179, 91 S.E.2d 338, 340 (1956). In its present form, section 6.88.120 is invalid because it vests Las Vegas officials with unlimited discretion to es......
-
Mayor and Council of Waynesboro v. McDowell, 19742
...Investments Co., Inc., 211 Ga. 235, 85 S.E.2d 20; Toomey v. Norwood Realty Co., Inc., 211 Ga. 814, 89 S.E.2d 265; Hunter v. City of Atlanta, 212 Ga. 179, 91 S.E.2d 338. One of the limitations placed upon the legislative power of a municipality electing to come under the provisions of the zo......
-
Tanksley v. Foster, 26008
...and merely in their individual capacities, perform the functions of the governing body of the City of Blairsville. Hunter v. City of Atlanta, 212 Ga. 179, 180, 91 S.E.2d 338. 3. We are aware of the cases decided by this court in the past to the effect that no particular form of enactment is......