Waldron v. City Of Atlanta, (No. 6436.)

• Decision Date: 15 January 1929
• Docket Number: (No. 6436.)
• Citation: 146 S.E. 318,167 Ga. 620
• Parties: WALDRON. v. CITY OF ATLANTA et al.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

167 Ga. 620

146 S.E. 318

WALDRON.

v.CITY OF ATLANTA et al.

(No. 6436.)

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Jan. 15, 1929.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error from Superior Court, Fulton County; E. D. Thomas, Judge.

Suit by R. P. Waldron against the City of Atlanta and others. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff brings error. On defendant's motion to dismiss writ of error. Writ of error dismissed.

W. Paul Carpenter, Aldine Chambers, and H. W. Chambers, all of Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.

J. L. Mayson, C. S. Winn, and Troutman & Troutman, all of Atlanta, for defendants in error.

RUSSELL, C. J. Shortly after the argument of this case in this court, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the writ of error. The motion was based upon the ground that the questions involved in the bill of exceptions had become moot, by reason of the fact that the plaintiff did not obtain a supersedeas, and that the work of lowering the railroad tracks, which the plaintiff sought to enjoin, had been completed by the Brooks-Calloway Company and paid for by the city of Atlanta, and consequently the plaintiff could not possibly derive any benefit from a reversal of the judgment. In answer to the rule nisi served upon the plaintiff to show cause why the bill of exceptions should not be dismissed, it is insisted that many vital questions are involved in the petition, besides the grant of an interlocutory injunction restraining the Brooks-Calloway Company from lowering the tracks of the railroad companies beneath the proposed viaducts on Pryor street and Central Avenue in the city of Atlanta. It is averred that the mere fact that the contract attacked has been completed does not furnish ground for the dismissal of the bill of exceptions, for the following among other reasons: The il legality of the contract was set up in the pleadings, and the charge made that many acts of the city authorities as well as some acts of the construction company were illegal; that the bids were not opened in the manner provided by the ordinance; a scale of wages was not attached to the bid; that Fulton county was illegally appropriating money to be used by the city, and the Georgia Power Company was buying certain rights from the city in an illegal manner and without adequate consideration.

We have submitted the motion to dismiss and the response to very careful and painstaking investigation. It appears that the complaints to which we have just referred are all fully set forth in the petition and explained or...