Richter v. Chatham County
| Decision Date | 18 November 1916 |
| Docket Number | (No. 137.) |
| Citation | 146 Ga. 218,91 S.E. 35 |
| Parties | RICHTER v. CHATHAM COUNTY et al. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Error from Superior Court, Chatham County; W. G. Charlton, Judge.
Petition by the State by Walter C. Hart-ridge, Solicitor General, to validate bonds of the County of Chatham, and George H. Richter intervened and demurred to the petition. The demurrer was overruled, the bond issue validated, and intervener brings error. Reversed.
On October 2, 1915, a petition was filed in the superior court by the solicitor general, representing the state under the act of 1897 (Acts 1897, p. 82), for the purpose of validating certain bonds of the county of Chatham, voted upon in an election held on September 21, 1915. On October 6, 1915, George H. Richter, a citizen of Chatham county, became a party to the proceeding, and demurred to the petition. On October 15, 1915, Chatham county filed its answer to the petition. Subject to the demurrer, Richter filed his answer to the answer of Chatham county, denying the allegations therein contained, and objecting specifically to the validation of $400,000 of bonds for school purposes. He also filed an amendment to his answer in which he specifically objected to the validation of $50,000 of bonds for a reformatory building. On October 25, 1915, Richter also demurred to the first paragraph of the sixteenth paragraph of the answer of Chatham county. Upon the hearing on October 29, 1915, Richter further demurred to paragraphs 2, 3, and 4 of the petition of the state. The presiding judge overruled both of the demurrers of Richter, whereupon he filed his answer denying paragraphs 2, 3, and 4 of the petition of the state. The court also overruled the demurrer of Richter to the first paragraph of the sixteenth paragraph of the answer of Chatham county. Chatham county, over objection, amended its answer. On January 15, 1916, an order was entered validating the entire issue of bonds. To this order Richter excepted.
Geo. H. Richter, of Savannah, in pro. per.
Walter C. Hartridge, Sol. Gen., Wm. B. Stephens and Geo. T. Cann, all of Savannah, for defendants in error.
GILBERT, J. (after stating the facts as above).
1. A county may issue bonds to be paid for with funds derived from public taxation, and procure a judgment of the court confirming and validating the same only when the Constitution and laws of the state have been fully complied with. One requirement, among others, is that bonds of this character may only issue when two-thirds of the qualified voters have given their assent to incurring the debt. Park's Code, § 6563. This assent must be expressed in an election held for that purpose under the rules provided by the General Assembly. Park's Code, § 441.
"In determining the question whether or not two-thirds of the qualified voters * * * voted in favor of the issuance of said bonds, the tally sheets of the last general election held in said county * * * shall be taken as a correct enumeration of the qualified voters thereof." Civil Code 1910, § 443.
Where legislative provision has been made as to the registration of voters in such a bond election, and where such provision is applicable in a particular county, such registration will be considered rather than the general rule provided by Civ. Code 1910, § 443. Gracen v. Savannah, 142 Ga. 143, 82 S. E. 453. It is insisted by the defendant in error that such provision has been made, and that the same is applicable in the county of Chatham. Acts 1915, p. 54. The first section of this act provides:
"That the county officers having charge of the levying of taxes for any county having a citytherein which now has or which may hereafter have a population of not less than 60, 000. nor more than 150, 000, may establish a system of registration whereby the electors of said county qualified to vote for members of the General Assembly may be...
To continue reading
Request your trial