Mayor And Council Of v. Calhoun

Decision Date16 May 1918
Docket Number(No. 639.)
Citation95 S.E. 991,148 Ga. 132
PartiesMAYOR AND COUNCIL OF TOWN OF ARLINGTON et al. v. CALHOUN et al.
CourtGeorgia Supreme Court

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error from Superior Court, Early County; W. C. Worrill, Judge.

Mandamus by H. M. Calhoun and others against the Mayor and Council of the Town of Arlington and others. Plea to the jurisdiction overruled, mandamus absolute granted, and defendants except and bring error. Reversed.

H. M. Calhoun and six other plaintiffs, as residents and taxpayers of the town of Arlington, brought their petition for mandamus in the superior court of Early county, against "the Mayor and Council of the Town of Arlington, " the corporate name and style of the municipality, and against "B. M. Garrett, in his capacity as mayor of said municipal corporation, J. E. Martin, B. H. Askew, Jr., Y. W. Fudge, G. M. Lofton, and B. C. Ray, in their capacity as councilmen and aldermen of said municipal corporation, " al leging that the municipality, the mayor thereof, and one of the aldermen were residents of Early county, and the other aldermen were residents of Calhoun county; that on January 9, 1907, said municipality issued bonds to the amount of $25,000 for the purpose of installing, erecting, and maintaining a waterworks and electric light plant in said town; and that said bonds were in the denominations of $1,000 each, the first being payable on September 1, 1911, and one each year thereafter up to and including September 1, 1935. The petitioners sought mandamus absolute against the defendants, requiring them to set aside as a sinking fund certain amounts to be actually held for retirement of the bonds in question and for other purposes, and requiring them to levy and collect the tax for the year 1917, in addition to the tax provided for the year 1917, "to make up the sinking funds to the amount that each should be under the ordinances." Before pleading to the merits of the case the defendants entered their plea to the jurisdiction of the superior court of Early county, and alleged that this court was without jurisdiction, and that the superior court of Calhoun county had jurisdiction of the case, on the ground that at the time of the suit and until the hearing the defendants were residents of Calhoun county and not residents of Early county, for that, while the corporate limits of the town of Arlington extend into and embrace a part of Early county and the town is situated in the two counties of Calhoun and Early, the seat of government of the municipal corporation is located in Calhoun county, and has been since the town was created. A statement of facts, agreed upon as correct by both parties, was presented and read to the court on the hearing of the plea to the jurisdiction. The essential portions of that statement are as follows:

"(1) The town of Arlington is situated in two counties, Calhoun and Early, the entire business section of said town and about two thirds of the residence section thereof being in Calhoun county and about one third of the residence section being in Early county.

"(2) The charter of said town does not prescribe where the principal office of the municipal corporation, which is named and styled in said charter, 'the Mayor and Council of the Town of Arlington, ' or its residence for jurisdictional purposes, shall be located.

"(3) The seat of government of said municipal corporation is located in Calhoun county; the council chambers, the office of the town clerk, the depository of the municipal records, the police court, the jail, and the voting place for all municipal elections are in Calhoun county, and have been ever since the town was created more than 35 years ago. All meetings and sessions of the governing authorities of said municipality are held in Calhoun county; all official acts of the mayor and council as such are done in Calhoun county; all trials of offenses in and against said municipality are held in Calhoun county; all municipal sales are had in Calhoun county; the voting precinct of the municipality is in Calhoun county; in short, all official business of said municipality is transacted in Calhoun county."

The court overruled the plea to the jurisdiction, and granted a mandamus absolute. To each of these rulings the defendants excepted.

B. W. Fortson, of Arlington, for plaintiffs in error.

L. M. Rambo, of Blakely, for defendants in error.

BECK, P. J. (after stating the facts as above). We are of the opinion that the court erred in overruling the plea to the jurisdiction in this case. Four of the aldermen of the town of Arlington were residents of Calhoun county; the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Ex parte City of Birmingham, 86-2
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • April 10, 1987
    ...... 832 (1948), an action was brought in Montgomery County against the City of Atmore, its city council, and a Montgomery resident. This Court held that venue was improper because the Montgomery ...        Phillips v. Mayor of Baltimore, 110 Md. 431, 438, 72 A. 902, 905 (1909).         We agree with this ...State ex rel. Crouch, 266 S.W.2d 184 (Tex.Civ.App.1954); Arlington v. Calhoun, 148 Ga. 132, 95 S.E. 991 (1918); Fostoria v. Fox, 60 Ohio St. 340, 54 N.E. 370 (1899); 17 ......
  • Ex parte City of Haleyville
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • February 22, 2002
    ......Mayor of Baltimore, 110 Md. 431, 438, 72 A. 902, 905 (1909)). Before Ex parte City of Birmingham, supra, ...State ex rel. Crouch, 266 S.W.2d 184 (Tex.Civ.App.1954); Arlington v. Calhoun, 148 Ga. 132, 95 S.E. 991 (1918); Fostoria v. Fox, 60 Ohio St. 340, 54 N.E. 370 (1899); 17 ......
  • Willis v. City of Corbin
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Kentucky
    • April 21, 1978
    ...... The Mayor of the City of Corbin was served with process while he was within Knox County.         On ... This interpretation is in accord with decisions in other jurisdictions. See Arlington v. Calhoun, 148 Ga. 132, 95 S.E. 991 (1918); Fostoria v. Fox, 60 Ohio St. 340, 54 N.E. 370 (1899); and Annot., ...Calhoun, supra, found a city's principal seat of government to be in the county where its council chambers, town clerk's office, municipal records depository, police court and jail were all located ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT