Savannah v. Jordan

• Decision Date: 23 May 1901
• Citation: 39 S.E. 511,113 Ga. 687
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court
• Parties: SAVANNAH, F. & W. RY. CO. v. JORDAN.

39 S.E. 511

113 Ga. 687

SAVANNAH, F. & W. RY. CO.

v.JORDAN.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

May 23, 1901.

TOWNS—CITIES—STATUTES—EFFECT—CITY COURT—JURISDICTION OF SUPREME COURT.

1.A place once incorporated by an act of the general assembly as a town will not become one of the cities of this state until there is a legislative enactment expressly declaring that such place is a city, and the mere fact that in different legislative acts referring to such town it is sometimes designated as a "city" will not make it a municipal corporation of the character indicated by that term.

2.Valdosta having been incorporated as a town in 1860, and the act incorporating it as such having never been repealed, its existence as a town has not been affected by the numerous acts of the general assembly referring to it as a city.

3.This court has no jurisdiction of a writ of error sued out for the purpose of having reviewed a judgment rendered by the city court of Valdosta.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error from city court of Valdosta; W. H. Griffin, Judge.

Action by C. R. Jordan against the Savannah, Florida & Western Railway Company.Judgment for plaintiff.Defendant brings error.Dismissed.

Wilkinson & Crawford and D. H. Pope, for plaintiff in error.

Toomer & Reynolds, J. R. Walker, and Howard Van Epps, for defendant in error.

COBB, J.The general assembly has the power under the constitution to create a court at any place in the state, and to style such a court a city court But the general assembly has no power to create a court, and call it a city court, and provide that the errors of such court may be corrected by direct bill of exceptions to this court, unless the court is established in a city of this state.Telegraph Co. v. Jackson, 98 Ga. 207, 25 S. E. 264.The power to create municipal corporations and style them cities is vested in the general assembly.Without reference to the question whether the general assembly has authority to establish city courts, the judgments of which are reviewable by direct bill of exceptions to this court, in any place which they may see proper to style a city, it is absolutely certain that the general assembly cannot establish such a city court in any place which has not by express legislative enactment been incorporated as a city.It has been distinctly ruled that the general assembly has no power to declare that a place which is incorporated as a town shall be a city for the sole purpose of establishing a city court therein, the judgments of which are reviewable in this court by direct bill of exceptions.Wight v. Wolff, 112 Ga. 169, 37 S. E. 395.It has also been ruled that an act establishing a city court at a place which Is incorporated as a town will not have the effect of bringing such court within the class of city courts referred to in that section of the constitution which fixes the jurisdiction of this court notwithstanding the act creating the city court refers to the place at which it is established as a city, and distinctly declares that the court shall be located at the place thus apparently recognized as an existing city.Atkinson v. State, 112 Ga. 402, 37 S. E. 746.It is clearly settled by the decisions just referred to that a place distinctly incorporated as a town does not become a city by reason of the fact that the general assembly, in an act in relation to the affairs of such town, refers to it as a city.In order to create a city in the first instance, it is necessary for the general assembly to expressly declare its intention that a given place shall be so designated and recognized.In order to change a town into a city, a similar express legislative declaration is essential; and, where a place has been distinctly incorporated as a town, the character of the municipal corporation thus created continues unchanged until there has been a legislative declaration, which not only, in effect, says that the place shall no longer be designated as a town, but expressly declares that it shall be classed as one of the cities of the state.The town of Valdosta was incorporated in 1860.Acts 1860, p. 107.In 1887 it was still recognized as the town of Valdosta.In that year the general assembly passed an act which was entitled "An act to amend an act incorporating the town of Valdosta, in the county of Lowndes, approved December 7, 1860."Acts 1887, p. 595.This act declared that the municipal government of "the city of Valdosta" shall be vested in a mayor and six councilmen, "who are hereby constituted a body corporate, under the name and style of the mayor and council of Valdosta."And in the same section of the act Valdosta is referred to as "said town."At various places in the act it is referred to as the "city of Valdosta, " and at other places as the "town of Valdosta."There is no express declaration in the act that the "town of Valdosta" shall thereafter be known...