Warren v. Walton
| Decision Date | 03 December 1973 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 28227,28278,s. 28227 |
| Parties | John WARREN et al. v. J. T. WALTON, Sheriff (two cases). |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. The local Act here (Ga.L.1973, p. 3237) is not in violation of the Home Rule Amendment to the Georgia Constitution.
2. Issuance of the injunction was not erroneous.
3. The local Act authorizes the Sheriff to fix the salaries of the deputies appointed thereunder.
Jordan D. Luttrell, Sparta, Harold Sheats, East Point, for appellants.
George D. Lawrence, Eatonton, for appellee.
The controlling issue in these two appeals is whether a local Act is unconstitutional because it is in violation of the Home Rule Amendment to the Georgia Constitution.
J. T. Walton, as Sheriff of Hancock County, filed a petition for the writ of mandamus in the Superior Court of that county against Johnny Warren, George Lott and Dwain Andrews, as members of the Board of Commissioners of Roads and Revenues of Hancock County.
The complaint alleged in material part that the General Assembly of Georgia at the 1973 Session enacted House Bill No. 867, Act No. 574 (Ga.L.1973, p. 3237) which was approved by the governor on April 17, 1973, a copy attached and incorporated by reference; that this Act authorized the Sheriff of Hancock County to appoint a chief deputy sheriff and three other deputy sheriffs at specified salaries; and that in pursuance of this authority the sheriff appointed three named deputies effective May 1, 1973.
The complaint further recited that the above Act directed the governing authority of Hancock County, the defendant Commissioners, to furnish the Sheriff with two radio equipped automobiles for his use in the performance of his official duties, and in particular for the use of the deputy sheriffs in the performance of their duties; that the Sheriff has repeatedly demanded that the defendants furnish him and the deputies these automobiles but they have refused to comply; that he has been prevented from carrying out his official duties and unable to provide police protection to the people of Hancock County because of this refusal; that he does not have funds available from any other source to provide the needed automobiles; and that the defendants should be required by mandamus to furnish them.
In response the defendants filed an answer denying the essential allegations and asserting that the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted because the local Act was unconstitutional and in conflict with Art. XV, Sec. II-A, Par. II of the Georgia Constitution (Code Ann. § 2-8403) in that it attempts to direct the Board of Commissioners of Hancock County to undertake certain actions which are left to the discretion of the Commissioners under the constitutional provision; and because the Act refers to more than one subject matter. The answer further stated that the defendants had adopted resolutions pursuant to which they would consider and vote upon repeal of Section 1 of the Act, and that upon repeal the petitioner would have failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
By amendment the defendants urged that the petition failed to state a claim for relief because the local Act conflicts with a general law, Code § 23-701, which places the power of disposition of county property in their hands.
Upon a hearing and consideration of evidence on May 29, 1973, the trial court ordered that mandamus be made absolute and judgment entered requiring the defendants to furnish the Sheriff with two radio-equipped automobiles to be used by him and his deputy sheriffs in the performance of their official duties.
A week later the Sheriff and his three deputies brought a second mandamus petition in which it was demanded that the commissioners pay the salaries of the deputies as set by the local Act, which were due and payable on May 31, 1973, thereunder; that the additional automobile expenses of the Sheriff provided by the Act also be paid.
Another petition was also filed by these parties seeking injunctive relief against the illegal repeal of the local Act which had been initiated by the Commissioners pursuant to the procedures set forth in the Home Rule Amendment (Code Ann. § 2-8402(b) Const. art. XV, § II-A, Par. 1).
These petitions were consolidated for hearing.
On July 3, 1973, the trial court again granted mandamus absolute, requiring the Commissioners to pay the salaries of the deputies and the additional expense monies demanded by the Sheriff, and that the deputies put up bond in the event their payment was illegal. The Commissioners were also enjoined from attempting to repeal Section I of the local Act.
The Commissioners have appealed all three judgments.
In appeal Number 28227 involving furnishing of the automobiles, the sole enumeration of error is that the trial court erred in issuing the mandamus because the local Act upon which it is based (Ga.L.1973, p. 3237) is in violation of Art. XV, Sec. II-A, Par. II of the Georgia Constitution; and as a consequence, under Art. XII, Sec. I, Par. IV and Art. I, Sec. IV, Par. II of our Constitution (Code Ann. §§ 2-8004 and 2-402), the local Act is void.
Appeal Number 28278 concerns the mandamus ordering payment of deputies' salaries and additional Sheriff's expenses, and injunction of the attempted repeal of the local Act. The first enumeration of error is identical to that in Appeal Number 28227 above. The others are that the trial court erred in not making findings of fact and stating separate conclusions of law in issuing the injunction as required by Code Ann. § 81A-152; in issuing the injunction; and in interpreting the local Act to permit the Sheriff to fix salaries thereunder.
Section 1 of the local Act complained of provides as follows:
Section 2, which is not in issue here, provides for an increase in salary for the Ordinary and Clerk of the Superior Court of Hancock County, and authorizes the clerk of the superior court to hire a secretary.
1. We conclude that Section 1 of Ga.L.1973, p. 3237 is not in violation of the Home Rule Amendment to the Georgia Constitution.
The appellant Commissioners argue in essence that Art. XV, Sec. II-A, Par. II (Code Ann. § 2-8403), which authorizes the governing authority of each county 'to fix the salary, compensation and expenses of those employed by such governing authority . . .,' empowers them to fix the salaries and expenses of the Sheriff and his deputies.
We do not agree. In our view, the office of sheriff is specifically exempt from Home Rule under Art. XV, Sec. II-A, Par. I(c) 1 (Code Ann. § 2-8402(c) 1).
That provision recites in pertinent part as follows: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Coffey v. Brooks County
...it all of its common-law duties and powers, except as modified by statute." (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Warren v. Walton, 231 Ga. 495, 496-500, 202 S.E.2d 405 (1973); see also Wayne County v. Herrin, 210 Ga.App. 747, 753(3), 437 S.E.2d 793 (1993). The sheriff and deputies have been......
-
Taylor v. Bartow County, Ga.
...systems for persons employed by them, but may not take actions affecting personnel of another elected official. Warren v. Walton, 231 Ga. 495, 499, 202 S.E.2d 405 (1973) (deputy sheriffs). County commissioners had no power to affect employees of other elected county officials until the enac......
-
Manders v. Lee
...is not an employee of the county commission."); Chaffin v. Calhoun, 262 Ga. 202, 203, 415 S.E.2d 906, 907 (1992); Warren v. Walton, 231 Ga. 495, 499, 202 S.E.2d 405, 409 (1973). The Georgia Constitution also prevents county governing authorities from taking any action affecting the sheriff'......
-
Manders v. Lee, 01-13606.
...is not an employee of the county commission."); see Chaffin v. Calhoun, 262 Ga. 202, 203, 415 S.E.2d 906 (1992); Warren v. Walton, 231 Ga. 495, 499-500, 202 S.E.2d 405 (1973). In contrast to the State's authority and control over sheriffs, Georgia's Constitution grants counties no legislati......
-
Georgia Local Government Law: Court Resolution of County Government Disagreements - Paul Vignos
...Tax Commissioner. Mobley, 242 Ga. at 802, 251 S.E.2d at 541. For an earlier decision on exempt county officers see Warren v. Walton, 231 Ga. 495, 202 S.E.2d 405 (1973). 70. O.C.G.A. Sec. 36-1-12 (1992). 71. Mobley, 242 Ga. at 801, 251 S.E.2d at 541. 72. 256 Ga. 497, 349 S.E.2d 737 (1986). 7......
-
The Georgia Home Rule System - R. Perry Sentell, Jr.
...authority under the constitution or the Home Rule Act. Id. (Carley, J., dissenting). 215. Ga. CONST, art. LX, Sec. 2, para. 1(c)(1). 216. 231 Ga. 495, 202 S.E.2d 405 (1973). 217. Id. at 496, 202 S.E.2d at 406-07. The local statute, 1973 Ga. Laws 3237, empowered the sheriff to appoint deputy......
-
The Eleventh Circuit's Misguided "arm-of-the-state" Analysis in Pellitteri v. Prine
...Code Ann. § 15-16-23 (2021) ("Sheriffs are authorized in their discretion to appoint one or more deputies."); see also Warren v. Walton, 202 S.E.2d 405, 409 (Ga. 1973) ("[T]his court has recognized that 'deputy sheriffs and deputy jailors are employees of the sheriff, whom the sheriffs alon......