Ross v. Lettice

• Decision Date: 09 August 1910
• Citation: 68 S.E. 734,134 Ga. 866
• Parties: ROSS v. LETTICE, County Treasurer.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

68 S.E. 734

134 Ga. 866

ROSS

v.LETTICE, County Treasurer.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Aug. 9, 1910.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

1. Constitutional Law(§ 190^*) — Retroactive Laws.

An act of the General Assembly which creates a new obligation and imposes a new duty in respect to transactions or considerations already past is retroactive in character, and in violation of article 1, §3, par. 2, of the Constitution (Civ. Code, § 5730), which forbids the General Assembly to pass a retroactive law.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Constitutional Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 531-533; Dec. Dig. 8 190*]

(Additional Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)

2. Constitutional Law (§ 188*)—"Retroactive Statutes."

A statute is "retroactive, " in its legal sense, which creates a new obligation on transactions or considerations already past, or destroys or impairs vested rights.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Constitutional Law, Cent. Dig. § 530; Dec. Dig. § 188.*

For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, vol. 7, pp. 6199-6201.]

Error from Superior Court, Bibb County; W. H. Felton, Judge.

Application of John P. Ross for writ of mandamus to M. Lettice, County Treasurer. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.

J. E. Hall and John P. Ross, for plaintiff in error.

Jos. H. Hall, Du Pont Guerry, and Warren Roberts, for defendant in error.

EVANS, P. J. In 1871 the General Assembly created the road board of Bibb county, conferring upon that body ministerial authority over clearing and working the legally established public roads. The fiscal affairs of Bibb county are looked after by the county board of commissioners, and that board has also jurisdiction to lay out and establish a public road. The county board of commissioners established a public road, directing it to be entered upon the register of public roads, to be worked by the county road forces. The road board refused to obey this order, and certain citizens of Bibb county filed an application for mandamus against them to compel obedience to such order. The road board employed Mr. Ross, an attorney at law, to defend the application for mandamus. His defense was successful. Green v. Road Board of Bibb County, 126 Ga. 693, 56 S. E. 59. Mr. Ross presented a bill for his fees to the proper authorities of Bibb county who refused to audit and pay the demand; and suit was instituted, which resulted in favor of the county. Thereupon the General Assembly passed an act authorizing and directing Bibb county to pay Mr. Ross' fee and certain expenses incurred by him in the litigation. The county commissioners, after the passage of this act, approved the demand and issued a warrant to the treasurer for its payment. The treasurer refused to pay the warrant, and Mr. Ross applied for a mandamus to compel him. The court refused to grant a mandamus absolute, and exception is taken thereto.

At the time of the enactment of the act of 1909 it had been adjudicated that Mr. Ross was not entitled to receive from the county's revenues compensation for defending the road board in certain litigation. This adjudication was based on the lack of power in the road board to employ counsel at the county's expense to defend the board in a mandamus proceeding instituted by citizens of the county to compel it to open andwork a road purporting to have been established by order of the county board of commissioners. Ross v. Bibb County, 130 Ga. 585, 61 S. E. 465. Whatever right Mr. Ross may now have against the county to collect his fee and certain expenses must spring from the act of 1909. By the terms of the act Bibb county "is authorized and directed to pay to John P. Ross, of said county, the sum of seven hundred and fifty ($750) dollars for attorney's fees incurred by the road board of Bibb county in the case of John C. Green and T. B. West v. The Road Board of Bibb county, petition for mandamus, in the superior court of Bibb county, and fourteen dollars and seventy-five cents ($14.75) for costs incurred by said road board and advanced by him on a cross-bill of exceptions in said case." Acts 1909, p. 377. This act is assailed as being void, because violative of article 1, § 3, par. 2, of the Constitution (Civ. Code, § 5730), which declares that "no bill of attainder, ex post facto law, retroactive law, or law impairing the obligations of contracts, or making irrevocable grants of special privileges or immunities, shall be passed." Manifestly the act is retrospective, and intended, not only to confer power upon the county to pay the fee, but to create a liability...