Mitchell v. Lasseter
| Decision Date | 10 December 1901 |
| Citation | 40 S.E. 287,114 Ga. 275 |
| Parties | MITCHELL et al., County Com'rs, v. LASSETER et al. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. An act of the general assembly authorizing the county authorities of a given county "to select and locate some central and convenient place within the same for a county site" (Acts 1857, p. 46, § 3), did not require that the place so selected should be at or near the geographical center of the county, unless at the time the county site was selected such a place would be convenient to the people of the county. The selection of a place near the center of one side of the county which was most easily accessible to a majority of the people of the county was a substantial compliance with the act.
2. When, under authority of an act of the character above referred to, the officers in charge of the affairs of a county acquire land at such a place as is above indicated and erect thereon permanent and substantial buildings, such as a court house and jail, and the same are used for more than 20 years as the court house and jail of the county, and the place so selected has been for the space of time mentioned recognized by the people and officers of the county, as well as by every department of the state government, as the county site, it will be presumed, when the records of the county authorities have been lost or destroyed, that the county site was permanently located at the place referred to in the manner provided in the act. Especially would such presumption arise when there is testimony of a witness who testifies that he was present at a meeting of the county authorities when an order to this effect was passed by them.
3. Recitals of fact in a public statute are not conclusive upon the courts, but evidence may be introduced to disprove them.
4. A court of equity will, at the instance of citizens and taxpayers of a county, enjoin the authorities in charge of the affairs of such county from carrying into effect an unauthorized order or judgment providing for the location of a county site, in the execution of which order it will be necessary either to expend the money of the taxpayers in the treasury of the county or to incur illegal indebtedness by the county.
Error from superior court, Wilcox county; D. M. Roberts, Judge.
Application by Z. W. Lasseter and others to restrain J. B. Mitchell and others, county commissioners of Wilcox county, from carrying into effect an order for the removal of the county seat. From an order granting the injunction, defendants bring error. Affirmed.
Max E Land and J. H. Martin, for plaintiffs in error.
Eldridge Cutts and J. L. Bankston, for defendants in error.
This was an application by certain residents and taxpayers of Wilcox county to enjoin the board of county commissioners of that county from removing the county records from Abbeville to Rochelle, and establishing the latter place as the county site of the county. The judge granted the injunction prayed for, and to this the defendants excepted.
1. The plaintiffs contend that the county site of Wilcox county has been located according to law at Abbeville, and that, having been so located, the county commissioners have no authority to remove it to another point, except in the manner provided in the constitution. The defendants contend that the county site has never been permanently located at any place, and that they are not seeking to remove the county site from Abbeville to Rochelle, but are simply proceeding to locate the county site at the latter place pursuant to certain acts of the general assembly.
Whether the action on the part of the board of commissioners is a mere location of the county site, or amounts to a removal thereof, depends upon the determination of the question whether the county site has been heretofore permanently located at Abbeville under the provisions of the act of 1857, which provided for the laying out and organization of Wilcox county. See Acts 1857, p. 46. The third section of the act just referred to provided: "The inferior court of said new county shall select and locate some central and convenient place within the same for a county site, provide for the erection of the public buildings, laying off the site into lots and streets, and make all such temporary arrangements for the transaction of the public business of said new county, in the meantime, as may be necessary and proper." Under the provisions of this section the inferior court were authorized to select some place within the county for the county site, but in the selection of this place they were required by the section to have due regard to two things: First, the place selected must be central; and, second, the place selected must be convenient. In determining the question as to where the county site was to be located, the inferior court had a discretion vested in them by the provisions of this act, but this discretion was to be exercised in such a way as to locate the county site at that place which would be most convenient to the people of the county, and at the same time at a point which would be considered central under existing conditions. The county site was to be as near central as possible, taking into consideration the location of the population of the county at the time the county site was located. It appears from the evidence in the present case that at the date of the passage of the act of 1857 nearly the entire population of Wilcox county resided along the Ocmulgee river, on the eastern boundary of the county, and that the middle and western portions of the county were very thinly settled. The place now known as Abbeville was located on the Ocmulgee river, about midway of the eastern boundary of the county. Taking everything into consideration, this place was beyond question the most convenient place for the county site at that time, so far as the population of the county was concerned, and it was to this extent a central point in the county. It was undoubtedly the intention of the general assembly, when they confided to the inferior court the authority to locate the county site at some central and convenient place, that this power should be so exercised as to locate the county site at a point which would be most easily accessible to the population of the county as it existed at the date of the passage of the act. It certainly could not have been the intention of the general assembly that the inferior court should locate the county site at or near the geographical center of the county, and this for two reasons: First, if the act is so construed, then the word "convenient" has no meaning whatever; and, second, if this word be given its full signification,--which must be done,--then at the date of the passage of the act the geographical center of the county would not have been a convenient place, so far as the population of the county was concerned.
2. Treating it as established that the place designated as Abbeville was a central and convenient point within the meaning of the act at the date of its passage, the question to be determined is, did the inferior court, under the act permanently locate the county site at Abbeville? It appears from the evidence that temporary arrangements were made by the inferior court under which the public business of the county was transacted in a double-pen log house; that they acquired title to 50 acres of land for county purposes under a donation made to them by a citizen of the county; that they proceeded to lay off the land so acquired into lots and streets, reserving 5 acres for the...
To continue reading
Request your trial