The County Of Dougherty v. Boyt

• Decision Date: 30 September 1883
• Citation: 71 Ga. 484
• Parties: The County of Dougherty et al. vs. Boyt et al.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

71 Ga. 484

The County of Dougherty et al. vs. Boyt et al.

Supreme Court of the State of Georgia

SEPTEMBER TERM, 1883.

[Hall, Justice, did not preside in this case.]

Municipal Corporations. Constitutional Law. Laws. Bonds. Elections. Debts. Before Judge Bower. Dougherty County. At Chambers. January 1, 1884.

Reported in the decision.

D. H. Pope, for plaintiffs in error.

G. J. Wright; J. W. Walters; L. Arnheim, for defendants.

Jackson, Chief Justice.

The question made by this record is, whether the local act, under which an election was held to determine on the issue of bonds for the purchase of a bridge over the Flint river at Albany, is in conflict with the constitution of 1877?

The first paragraph of the fourth section of the first article of the constitution, Code, §5027, declares that, " Laws of a general nature shall have uniform operation through-out the state, and no special law shall be enacted in any case for which provision has been made by an existing general law."

In 1879 a general law, in respect to the manner in which the counties and municipalities of this state should hold elections to determine the issue of bonds creating an indebtedness in bonds of such county or municipality, as prescribed in paragraphs 1 and 2, of section 7, and article 7 of the constitution (Code, §§5191, 5192), was enacted, which general law is codified in sections 508 (i), (j), (k), (1) and (m) of the Code.

The act thus codified was passed on the 11th of October, 1879. A local act for Dougherty county to hold an election, in a different manner and with different notices and different voters in regard to registration, was passed at the same session on the 10th of September, 1879, but being unproductive of results in favor of the issue of the bonds, this local act was " continued of force" or re-enacted on the 13th of September, 1881, long after the passage of the general act on the subject of the issue of bonds and elections therefor, in a different manner, which had been enacted on the 14th of October, 1879.

So that it is plain that this re-enacting or continuing inforce local act of 1881 was enacted while an existing general law on the subject of such elections in a different manner was in force, and was therefore unconstitutional and void. It was by virtue of this last local act that the election was held to issue some thirty thousand dollars worth of bonds, by which election alone their issue is authorized. To enjoin the issue of these bonds under this election, held under this unconstitutional local act, this bill of injunction was brought. The chancellor granted the injunction prayed for, and was obliged to do so under the constitution itself, which declares: "Legislative acts in violation of this constitution, or the constitution of the United States, are void, and the judiciary shall so declarethem." Par. 2, section 4, article 1, of the constitution. Code...