Ledbetter Bros., Inc. v. Floyd County
| Decision Date | 08 June 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 30947,30947 |
| Citation | 237 Ga. 22,226 S.E.2d 730 |
| Parties | LEDBETTER BROTHERS, INC. v. FLOYD COUNTY, Georgia, et al. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Brinson, Askew & Berry, Robert L. Berry, Robert M. Brinson, Rome, for appellant.
George Anderson, Rome, for appellees.
This is an appeal from an interlocutory order, entered after a hearing, in which the Superior Court of Floyd County denied appellant's prayers for an interlocutory injunction.
Appellant, as a taxpayer, seeks to enjoin as ultra vires the Board of Commissioners of Floyd County from expending public funds for the purchase of facilities and equipment to undertake the production of asphalt. After a hearing the trial court, in a complete and well researched opinion, found the proposed plans and plant to be workable; that the Commissioners have authority to purchase and operate an asphalt plant; that the asphalt mix to be produced would be used in the construction and maintenance of county roads, and would not be sold to the general public or private enterprises.
1. Appellant argues that the sole purpose of the hearing on an interlocutory injunction is to determine how best to maintain the status quo until the final hearing by balancing the relative conveniences of the parties. We agree that the court on an interlocutory injunction is not making a final order, and that any findings of the trial judge are not conclusive on the parties on the final hearing. However, the trial court on an interlocutory hearing may look to the final hearing and contemplate the results. Bradley v. Roberts, 233 Ga. 114, 210 S.E.2d 236 (1974); Milton Frank Allen Publications v. Georgia Association of Petroleum Retailers, 223 Ga. 784, 158 S.E.2d 248 (1967). In balancing the relative conveniences of the parties, the court may determine that the law and facts are so adverse to one party's position that a final order in his favor is unlikely. Where the court concludes that a final judgment for the plaintiff is unlikely, it may be justified in denying the temporary injunction because of the inconvenience and harm to the defendant if the injunction was granted.
2. Appellant further contends that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the temporary injunction.
Where the trial court, in ruling on an interlocutory injunction, makes findings of fact based upon conflicting evidence, this court will not disturb the ruling as an abuse of discretion unless the denial or granting of the injunction was based on an erroneous interpretation of the law. Holderness v. Lands West, Inc., 232 Ga. 452, 207 S.E.2d 464 (1974); Forrester v. City of Gainesville, 223 Ga. 344, 155 S.E.2d 376 (1967). The trial court concluded as a matter of law that the county commissioners have authority under the State Constitution and statutes to purchase and operate an asphalt mix plant and produce asphalt for use on county roads, and that the county commissioners have not abused their discretion in proceeding with the project.
The Georgia Constitution grants broad and general powers to the counties to levy taxes and expend public funds for the purpose of road construction, maintenance and improvement, which are explained and developed further by statute. Art. VII, Sec. IV, Par. II (Code Ann. § 2-5702). The Code of Public Transportation sets out the duties of the county with respect to its road system: 'A county shall plan, designate, improve, manage, control, construct, and maintain an adequate county road system and shall have control of and responsibility for all construction, maintenance, or other work related to the county road system.' Code Ann. § 95A-401(a) (Ga.L.1973, pp. 947, 994; 1974, pp. 1422, 1430). This statute places broad responsibilities, similar in scope to the powers granted in the Constitution, on the counties in regard to a county road system, including the responsibility for all 'work related to the county road system.' The statute goes on to provide incidental powers and for a liberal construction of all powers granted to the counties in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shadix v. Carroll County
...a matter of public policy and balancing of the equities that plaintiffs were not entitled to an injunction. Ledbetter Bros., Inc. v. Floyd County, 237 Ga. 22, 226 S.E.2d 730 (1976); Bradley v. Roberts, 233 Ga. 114, 210 S.E.2d 236 (1974); Milton Frank Allen Publications v. Ga. Assn. of Petro......
-
Gateway Cmty. Serv. Bd. v. Bonati
...or the execution of contracts which are effective beyond the term of the [administration] then in office," Ledbetter Bros. v. Floyd County , 237 Ga. 22, 24 (4), 226 S.E.2d 730 (1976), "is not of statutory origin, and ... is applicable generally to legislative or governmental bodies." (Citat......
-
AAB v. JAMES BROWN ENTERPRISES, INC.
...to base the ruling or it was based on an erroneous interpretation of the law. Id. at 146, 401 S.E.2d 515; Ledbetter Bros., Inc. v. Floyd County, 237 Ga. 22, 23, 226 S.E.2d 730 (1976). The trial court's conclusion that the 1998 court order compelled its ruling cannot stand because it was bas......
-
Outdoor Advertising Ass'n v. Garden Club
...party seeking the injunction. Lee v. Environmental Pest & Termite Control, 271 Ga. 371, 516 S.E.2d 76 (1999); Ledbetter Brothers v. Floyd County, 237 Ga. 22, 226 S.E.2d 730 (1976); Wilson v. Sermons, 236 Ga. 400, 223 S.E.2d 816 The superior court weighed the equities in favor of the Garden ......
-
Variations on a Theme: Georgia's Evolving Test for Interlocutory Injunctive Relief
...Hwy Dept., 224 Ga. 543, 549, 163 S.E.2d 698, 702 (1968). [30] 195 Ga. 237, 24 S.E.2d 29 (1943). [31] Id. at 244, 24 S.E.2d at 33. [32] 237 Ga. 22, 226 S.E.2d 730 (1976). [33] Id. at 22, 226 S.E.2d at 731. [34] 233 Ga. 114, 210 S.E.2d 236 (1974). [35] 223 Ga. 784, 162 S.E.2d 724 (1968). [36]......