Taylor v. Moultrie Tobacco Sales Bd., Inc., 26298
| Citation | 227 Ga. 384,180 S.E.2d 737 |
| Decision Date | 04 March 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 26298,26298 |
| Parties | Floyd M. TAYLOR, Jr., et al. v. MOULTRIE TOBACCO SALES BOARD, INC. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Georgia |
Billy G. Fallin, Moultrie, for appellants.
Hoyt H. Whelchel, Jr., Moultrie, for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
Floyd M. Taylor, Jr., and others, in their complaint for a declaratory judgment against Moultrie Tobacco Sales Board, Inc., sought: The only allegations as to the unconstitutionality of any statute of the State are: 'Petitioners show that the act of the General Assembly delegating to the defendant authority to establish rules and regulations is an attempt to delegate a legislative function and is unconstitutional.'
The prayers of the petition were that the court adjudicate, determine and declare the rights of the petitioners with respect to the matters set out in the petition. There were no prayers for any equitable relief.
After a hearing, the court passed an order denying the prayers for a declaratory judgment and dismissing the complaint. The appeal is from this order.
The appeal does not state the reason why the appeal was made to this court. Held: To properly raise the question as to the constitutionality of a statute the complaint must specify: (a) the particular statute; (b) the specific provision of the Constitution that the statute violates; and (c) how and in what manner the statute violates the specified provisions of the constitution. Richmond Concrete Products Co. v. Ward, 212 Ga. 773, 95 S.E.2d 677. None of the allegations in the petition raises a constitutional question over which this Court has jurisdiction. Ledford v. J. M. Muse Co., 224 Ga. 617, 163 S.E.2d 815. The case is
Transferred to the Court of Appeals.
All the Justices concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
North Georgia Finishing, Inc. v. Di-Chem, Inc.
...411; Tant v. State, 226 Ga. 761, 177 S.E.2d 484; Stroud v. Stroud, 226 Ga. 769, 177 S.E.2d 574, and Taylor v. Moultrie Tobacco Sales Board, Inc., 227 Ga. 384, 385, 180 S.E.2d 737. We are bound by these decisions of the Supreme Court and only the Supreme Court can change these rulings. Furth......
-
Evans Theatre Corp. v. Slaton
... ... 538, 150 S.E. 825; Rose Theatre Inc. v. Litty, 185 Ga. 53(1), 193 S.E. 866; Atkinson ... ...
-
North Fulton Community Hosp., Inc. v. State Health Planning & Development Agency
...specific in its objection to raise the constitutional issues now sought to be heard in this court. See Taylor v. Moultrie Tobacco Sales Bd., 227 Ga. 384, 180 S.E.2d 737 (1971); Elinburg v. State, 227 Ga. 246(1), 179 S.E.2d 926 (1971); Persons v. Lea, 207 Ga. 384(2), 61 S.E.2d 832 (1950). Th......
-
Gilmore v. State
...190 Ga. 651, 10 S.E.2d 198; Emerson v. Southwest Ga. &c. Housing Authority, 196 Ga. 675, 27 S.E.2d 334; Taylor v. Moultrie Tobacco Sales Board, 227 Ga. 384, 385, 180 S.E.2d 737. Here defendants have not complied with No. 3 to show how due process was violated as to them. Buchanan v. Heath, ......