Woodward v. Westmoreland

• Decision Date: 21 December 1905
• Citation: 52 S.E. 810,124 Ga. 529
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court
• Parties: WOODWARD et al. v. WESTMORELAND et al.

52 S.E. 810

124 Ga. 529

WOODWARD et al.

v.WESTMORELAND et al.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Dec. 21, 1905.

Health—State Board of Health—Power to Sue.

The act of 1903 (Acts 1903, p. 72), creating the state board of health, not declaring that board to be a corporation, and not conferring upon the board as such, nor its members, the right to sue, no suit can be brought, in the names of the members of the board in alleged representative capacity, relating to matters within the jurisdiction of the board.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 25, Cent. Dig. Health, § 17.]

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error from Superior Court, Fulton County; J. T. Pendleton, Judge.

Action by W. F. Westmoreland and others against J. G. Woodward and others. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendants bring error. Reversed.

W. F. Westmoreland and others, suing in their representative capacity as the state board of health for the state of Georgia, brought a petition for injunction against J G. Woodward and others, composing the local board of health of the city of Atlanta, and alleged that on September 2, 1905, the petitioners were informed that yellow fever was prevalent in the state of Louisiana and other states of the United States, and it became the duty of the petitioners, under the act creating the state board of health, to adopt such rules and regulations quarantining the state of Georgia against infected districts as would effectually prevent the spread of yellow fever into this state. The rules and regulations so adopted are set out as an exhibit. It was further alleged that the local board of health of Atlanta "sought to impede, prevent, and destroy" the efficiency of the quarantine declared by the petitioners, and did various acts in defiance of the rules and regulations adopted by the petitioners. They prayed that the defendants be individually, and in their representative capacity as the local board of health of Atlanta, enjoined from interfering with the enforcement of the rules and regulations of the state board of health. A demurrer to the petition was interposed by the defendants upon the grounds that no reasons were shown for granting the relief prayed, that the state board of health is not a corporation, but only an agency, of the state, and, if any right to maintain this petition exists, it must be brought in the name of the state, and by authority of the state, and that the defendants cannot be sued in their representative capacity, but, if any action lies by reason of any acts done by them, it should be brought against the city of Atlanta. An answer was also filed by the defendants, and upon a hearing the injunction was granted as prayed. To this judgment the defendants excepted.

J. L. Mayson and W. P. Hill, for plaintiffs in error.

Jno. C. Hart, Atty. Gen., and J. S. Kilpatrick, for defendants in error.

COBB, P. J. The state board of health was created by an act approved August 17, 1903. See Acts 1903, p. 72. The act declares that a board, to be known as the "State Board of Health, " is established "and made one of the public institutions of the state." The number of members constituting this board, the manner of appointment, and their powers and duties are set forth in the act. The board is given supervision of all matters relating to the preservation of the life and health of the people of the state. The act does not in terms declare the state board of health to be a corporation, nor does it provide that the board, as such, or its members, may bring suit. The board is created simply as an agency of the state government, to have supervision and control over all matters relating to the public health. There are always a number of these agencies for the control of certain matters relating to public affairs, and the authority of suchagencies, or of the individuals composing the same, to bring suit in behalf of the public, depends upon the terms of the act creating the agencies and denning their limits and powers. If the act creating the board in express terms authorizes suits to be brought by it for the purpose of enforcing the rights of the public which will be subserved by the action of the board, then, of course, the board would have authority to bring suit in its own name, if a name were given to it in the act creating it, or in the name of its members, if there was no name provided in the act in the nature of...