Stewart v. Bacon County
| Decision Date | 15 May 1918 |
| Docket Number | 618. |
| Citation | 95 S.E. 983,148 Ga. 105 |
| Parties | STEWART ET AL. v. BACON COUNTY ET AL. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
The court did not err in overruling the motion for a continuance.
The court did not err in overruling the demurrer filed by the interveners to the petition of the solicitor general for the validation of certain bonds, raising the question as to the sufficiency of the petition.
The registration lists of voters prepared under the provisions of the act relative to the registration of voters in elections to incur debts by counties, approved August 18, 1916 (Georgia Laws 1916, p. 138), were properly furnished to the managers of the election held in Bacon county, to determine whether that county could issue the bonds in controversy here.
The provision in the amendment to the Constitution proposed by the Legislature at its annual session of 1916 (Georgia Laws 1916, p. 17), and subsequently ratified by the people at the general election of the same year, declaring that "The county of Bacon is hereby authorized to create a bonded debt not to exceed one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) for public improvements in said county of Bacon, by the consent of the majority of the regular qualified voters of said county of Bacon voting at an election for that purpose," and "that said election to create said debt shall be held under the law now in force, for creation of the debt," is not invalid because in conflict with the existing provisions in the Constitution in reference to the creation of bonded debts by counties, and was controlling at an election held subsequently to the ratification of the proposed amendment for the purpose of authorizing the issuance of bonds for public improvements in an amount not exceeding that fixed by the amendment.
There is no merit in the contention that the act of the General Assembly approved August 18, 1916, in regard to the registration of voters in elections to incur debts by counties (Georgia Laws 1916, p. 138), is invalid on the ground that it is in "conflict with article 7, § 7, par 1, of the Constitution of this state, in that it provides that a county may create a debt without the assent of two-thirds of the qualified voters thereof voting in favor of the creation of the debt at an election held for that purpose." It is not unconstitutional for the reason assigned, as it does not contain the obnoxious provision recited in the assignment of error.
Error from Superior Court, Bacon County; J. I. Summerall, Judge.
Proceeding by the Solicitor General of the Waycross Judicial Circuit, in the name of the State of Georgia, against the County of Bacon, to validate certain bonds, with intervention by John L. Stewart and others, citizens and taxpayers of the county in opposition. Demurrer of interveners to the petition overruled, and from a judgment and order validating the bonds, the interveners except and bring error. Affirmed.
The solicitor general of the Waycross judicial circuit, in the name of the state of Georgia, filed a petition against the county of Bacon, in accordance with the provisions of section 446 of the Code, prescribing the duties of the solicitor general in proceedings for the validation of bonds, and a rule nisi having been granted thereon, calling upon the county of Bacon by its proper officers to show cause at the time and place specified in the order why the prayers of the petition should not be granted, the county of Bacon through its attorney at law made answer to the application, and filed the answer, with various exhibits attached thereto, including the certificate of the ordinary of the county, showing the total number of qualified voters who had registered and qualified to vote in the election creating the bonded indebtedness in question. At the time and place fixed in the rule nisi for the hearing, John L. Stewart and certain other citizens and taxpayers of Bacon county presented and had filed their intervention and prayer to be made parties defendant in the case, in opposition to the validation of the bonds mentioned in the petition for validation and the prayer of Stewart and others to be allowed to intervene was granted. The interveners filed their demurrer to the petition, and excepted to the judgment overruling their demurrer. The judge thereupon rendered judgment and passed an order validating the bonds in question, and this was excepted to by interveners.
J. C Bennett, of Hazlehurst, and W. W. Bennett, of Baxley, for plaintiffs in...
To continue reading
Request your trial