Smith v. State by Hayes, 21293

Decision Date06 July 1961
Docket NumberNo. 21293,21293
Citation121 S.E.2d 113,217 Ga. 94
PartiesHenry SMITH v. STATE of Georgia, by Dewey HAYES, Solicitor General, et al.
CourtGeorgia Supreme Court

Syllabus by the Court

1. The amendment to article 5 of the Constitution of 1945 which created the Waycross and Ware County Development Authority, does not directly affect or apply to the State as a whole and, under the provisions of article 13, section 1, paragraph 1 of the Constitution of 1945, as amended in 1952, it was not necessary that it be submitted for ratification to all of the qualified voters of the State, but only to the qualified voters of the two political subdivisions which it affected or to which it applied.

2. The Waycross and Ware County Development Authority has constitutional and statutory authority to issue and sell revenue bonds for the purpose of developing and promoting, for the public good and general welfare, industry, agriculture, commerce, natural resources and vocational training, and the making of long-range plans for the co-ordination of such development, promotion, and expansion within its territorial limits.

3. In all complained of respects the contracts referred to in the opinion fully conform to applicable constitutional and statutory provisions which were of force and effect in this State when the contracts were entered into. Hence, they are not invalid and unenforceable for any reason alleged in the intervention.

4. The trial judge did not err for any reason alleged in the intervention in rendering the judgment complained of.

J. C. Murphy, Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.

Kelley & Mobley, Atlanta, Bennett, Pedrick & Bennett, Waycross, Dewey Hayes, Sol. Gen., Douglas, Sumter Kelley, John H. Mobley, Atlanta, John W. Bennett, Q. L. Garrett, Joe Schreiber, Waycross, Eugene Cook, Atty. Gen., Ariel V. Conlin, Asst. Atty. Gen., Sheldon C. Dorough, Dep. Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.

W. L. Stone, Blakely, Crenshaw, Hansell, Ware, Brandon & Dorsey, C. Edward Hansell, Atlanta, for party at interest.

CANDLER, Justice.

Article 7, section 6, paragraphs 1 and 2, of the Constitution of 1877 were amended in 1938 so as to authorize Ware County and the City of Waycross to levy a tax, in addition to those each was then authorized to levy, not to exceed one mill on all of the taxable property in that city and county, for the purpose of acquiring and creating a fund to be set aside and used exclusively by each in assisting, promoting, and encouraging the location of new industries in the City of Waycross or elsewere in Ware County (Ga.L.1937, pp. 1129 and 1131). These two amendments were carried forward into the Constitution of 1945 (Code Ann. § 2-6301). The General Assembly in 1953 adopted a resolution proposing an amendment to article 5 of the Constitution of 1945 (Ga.L.1953, Nov.-Dec. Sess. p. 266). In part, section 1 of the resolution provides: 'That Article V of the Constitution of the State of Georgia is hereby amended by adding to the end thereof a new section and paragraph to be known as Section VIII, Paragraph I, which shall read as follows, to wit: There is hereby created a body corporate and politic to be known as the 'Waycross and Ware County Development Authority' which shall be deemed to be an instrumentality of the State of Georgia and a public corporation, its scope and jurisdiction to be limited to the territory embraced by Ware County and the corporate limits of the City of Waycross. The County of Ware and the City of Waycross may contract with the Authority as a public corporation as provided by the Constitution of Georgia.' The resolution also provides that the Authority shall consist of eight members who shall have such control, duties, powers and authority as it confers on it and as may be prescribed or provided for by the General Assembly of Georgia, and such additional powers as may be delegated to it by Ware County and the City of Waycross; that the members of the Authority shall be residents of Ware County within or without the corporate limits of the City of Waycross; that the General Assembly shall provide for the appointment of the Authority's members; that all lands and improvements thereon title to which is vested in the Authority, and all debentures and revenue anticipation certificates issued by the Authority shall be exempt from State and local taxation; that the Authority is created for the purpose of developing and promoting for the public good and general welfare industry, agriculture, commerce, natural resources and vocational training, and the making of long-range plans for the co-ordination of such development, promotion, and expansion within its territorial limits; that the Authority shall not be empowered or authorized in any manner to create a debt against the State of Georgia, the County of Ware, or the City of Waycross; that it is created for non-profit purposes; and that all property acquired by it and any funds realized by it shall be used continually and exclusively for the purposes for which it is created. Section 2 of the resolution authorizes and instructs the Governor to cause such proposed amendment to be published as provided in article 13, section 1, paragraph 1, of the Constitution of 1945 as amended (Code, § 2-8101), for two months previous to the time of the general election, at which the proposed amendment shall be submitted to the electors for ratification as provided for in that paragraph of the Constitution; and section 2 of the resolution also provides that, if a majority of the electors qualified to vote for members of the General Assembly voting thereon in Ware County and also a majority of the electors voting thereon in the City of Waycross shall vote for ratification of the amendment, it shall become a part of the Constitution of Georgia when the Governor issues a proclamation to that effect. When this amendment was submitted to the qualified voters of the City of Waycross and of Ware County for ratification, article 13, section 1, paragraph 1 of the Constitution of 1945 (Code, § 2-8101) had been previously amended by adding thereto the following words: 'Provided, however, that proposed amendments to the Constitution which only affect or apply to one or more counties, or one or more municipalities, shall only be submitted to the voters of the county or counties or to the voters of the municipality or municipalities, which the proposed amendment affects or applies. If the amendment affects more than one county or more than one municipality the total vote of the area shall be consolidated and a majority of the whole vote shall be required as a condition precedent to ratification. * * *' (Ga.L.1951, p. 681).

The proposed amendment was submitted for ratification to the qualified voters of Ware County and also to the qualified voters of the City of Waycross at the general election held in 1954, and the record shows that 2,685 voted in favor of its ratification and 431 voted against its ratification; that a majority of the votes so cast both in Ware County and in the City of Waycross were in favor of ratifying the proposed amendment; and that the Governor subsequently issued a proclamation declaring it to be a part of the Constitution of 1945, and no contention is here made that the proposed amendment was not legally ratified if it affects or applies only to the City of Waycross and Ware County. But as to proper ratification, see Cartledge v. City Council of Augusta, 189 Ga. 267, 269, 5 S.E.2d 661.

In 1955, the General Assembly passed an act captioned: 'An Act to create the Waycross and Ware County Development Authority; to provide the purpose, duties, control, organization and powers of said Authority; to provide for issuing revenue anticipation certificates and for validation of such certificates; to repeal conflicting laws; and for other purposes.' Ga.L.1955, p. 2840. This act was introduced and passed as a local or special bill, and in compliance with the provisions of article 3, section 7, paragraph 15 of the Constitution of 1945 (Code, Ann.Supp. § 2-1915). Section 6(l) of the act authorizes the Authority to issue revenue-anticipation certificates for the purpose of paying all or any part of the cost of any project of the Authority, and provides that the revenue-anticipation certificates which it is authorized to issue must be issued and validated under and in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Revenue Certificate Law of 1937 (Ga.L.1937, pp. 761-774), as subsequently amended in 1939 (Ga.L.1939, p. 362). Section 7 of the act exempts from State and local taxation all lands and improvements and personal property the title to which is vested in the Authority, and all debentures, notes, bonds, and revenue-anticipation certificates issued by it. The legislature in 1957 (Ga.L.1957, p. 36) passed an act substituting the words 'revenue bonds' for the words 'revenue anticipation certificates' wherever the latter words appear in the Revenue Certificate Law of 1937, as amended in 1939. On March 27, 1961, and pursuant to the procedure provisions of the Revenue Certificate Law of 1937 as amended in 1939, the State of Georgia, acting through the Solicitor General of the Waycross Judicial Circuit, filed a petition in the Superior Court of Ware County against the Waycross and Ware County Development Authority, the City of Waycross, and Ware County to validate and confirm Series 1961 revenue bonds in the principal amount of $115,000, which the Authority desired to issue and sell for the purpose of providing funds to pay the purchase price in whole or in part for certain realty in the City of Waycross and for the purpose of paying in whole or in part the cost of constructing thereon and equipping an industrial, manufacturing and commercial facility for lease or rent to Waycross Sportswear, Inc., including the usual and related appurtenances useful in connection therewith and for the purpose of paying costs and expenses incident to the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Mitchell v. North Carolina Indus. Development Financing Authority, 532
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • March 6, 1968
    ...Georgia: The General Assembly may amend the constitution to establish County Development Authority. Bonds approved in Smith v. State, 217 Ga. 94, 121 S.E.2d 113 (1961); bonds disapproved in Smith v. State, 222 Ga. 552, 150 S.E.2d 868 Louisiana: Art. 14, § 14 of the constitution authorizes m......
  • Building Authority of Fulton County v. State of Ga., s. 40801
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • September 6, 1984
    ...for up to 50 years is contained in the intergovernmental contracts provision, quoted at the outset in this opinion. Smith v. State, 217 Ga. 94(3)(a), 121 S.E.2d 113 (1961). 11. Intervenor's eleventh contention is that the payments to be made by the county to the Authority under the agreemen......
  • Holmes v. Chatham Area Transit Authority, A98A1205.
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • July 30, 1998
    ...Authority); Fulton-DeKalb Hosp. Auth. v. Gaither, 241 Ga. 572, 247 S.E.2d 89 (1978) (local hospital authorities); Smith v. State of Ga., 217 Ga. 94, 121 S.E.2d 113 (1961) (Waycross and Ware County Development Authority); Tippins v. Cobb County Parking Auth., 213 Ga. 685, 100 S.E.2d 893 (195......
  • Odom v. Union City Downtown Development Authority, 39500
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • July 8, 1983
    ...authorities. Prior to 1963, industrial development authorities were created in piecemeal fashion. See, e.g., Smith v. State, 217 Ga. 94, 121 S.E.2d 113 (1961) (local constitutional amendment). In 1963 the Industrial Development Authorities Law was enacted, Ga.L.1963, p. 531, creating a stat......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT