McWilliams v. City of Rome

• Decision Date: 17 August 1912
• Citation: McWilliams v. City of Rome, 138 Ga. 581, 75 S.E. 645 (Ga. 1912)
• Parties: McWILLIAMS et al. v. CITY OF ROME.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

75 S.E. 645

138 Ga. 581

McWILLIAMS et al. v. CITY OF ROME.

Supreme Court of Georgia

August 17, 1912

Syllabus by the Court.

Where a municipal charter authorized the mayor and council to elect three building inspectors to discharge certain duties, and instead of so doing, the mayor and council passed an ordinance declaring that the superintendent of public works should be the building inpector, that no building or repairs should be done without leave from him, and that he should have direct supervision over all such buildings and repairs and see that the ordinances of the city relative thereto were complied with, if the city was otherwise liable for the conduct of the building inspector in tearing down a wall belonging to a property owner, it would not be relieved from such liability by reason of the irregularity in the election of such officer. City Council of Sheffield v Harris, 101 Ala. 564, 14 So. 357.

In a suit against a municipality on account of the alleged wrongful tearing down of a wall by its building inspector under its authority, the plaintiffs' counsel was proceeding, regularly and without unnecessary consumption of time, or the offering of irrelevant testimony, so far as the record discloses, to introduce evidence for the purpose of proving the allegations of his petition. The presiding judge interrupted counsel by stating that he did not wish to interfere with the management of the case, but in order to save time he desired to know what the mayor and council had to do with the transaction. Counsel proceeded to examine a witness who was on the stand. The court again interrupted him with the statement: "I want you to show by what authority this wall was torn down before we proceed with the other. You are suing for damages to a wall that was torn down. You charge that, under the supervision and the authority of the mayor and council, so and so was done. I want you to show what that authority was." And again "The mayor and council speak by record. I want to know what the mayor and council have done." Another colloquy ensued. In this he remarked that any evidence would be admitted which showed corporate action, though not reduced to writing and entered on the minutes. Other evidence was offered, touching the application to council for a permit to repair the building, the tearing down of the wall, etc.; but the plaintiffs' counsel had not announced the evidence closed. Defendant's counsel...