Board of Commissioners v. Whittle

178 S.E. 534, 180 Ga. 166, 1935 Ga. LEXIS 206
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedJanuary 16, 1935
DocketNo. 10501
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 178 S.E. 534 (Board of Commissioners v. Whittle) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Board of Commissioners v. Whittle, 178 S.E. 534, 180 Ga. 166, 1935 Ga. LEXIS 206 (Ga. 1935).

Opinion

Atkinson, Justice.

Sheriffs “are authorized in their discretion to appoint one or more .deputies, from whom they must take a bond with sureties” (Civil Code of 1910, § 4912), and are liable on their official bonds “for the faithful performance of their duties as sheriffs, by themselves, their deputies, and their jailers.” § 4906. In certain counties sheriffs shall, at least ninety days before the first day of January, furnish to the county commissioners “a statement as to the number of . . deputies required by” them, “together with a recommendation as to the salaries” of such deputies, “and thereupon the said county commissioners . . shall fix, for the year succeeding, the salaries of said . . deputies,” subject to revision by the grand jury. Ga. L. 1924, p. 90, sections 4, 5. field:

1. In counties in which the act of 1924 applies, the powers conferred by that law upon the county commissioners do not extend to abolishment of office of deputy sheriff, or to discharge or control of deputies which the sheriff sees fit to select and for whoso conduct he and his bond are liable.

2. The judge did not abuse his discretion in consolidating' the cases.

3. Considering' the relief sought in the consolidated cases, which was not entirely injunctive in character, the judgment was not erroneous on the ground that it was the grant of a mandatory injunction.

4. The judgment for the plaintiff, upon which error was assigned, was not erroneous for any reason stated in. the brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error.

Judgmmt affirmed.

All the Justices concur. Pierce Brothers, for plaintiffs in error. Isaac 3. Peebles Jr., and William K. Miller, contra.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Seay v. Cleveland
493 S.E.2d 30 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1997)
Gwinnett County v. Yates
458 S.E.2d 791 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1995)
Wayne County v. Herrin
437 S.E.2d 793 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1993)
Board of Commissioners of Randolph County v. Wilson
396 S.E.2d 903 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1990)
Pettus v. Smith
330 S.E.2d 735 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1985)
Warren v. Walton
202 S.E.2d 405 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1973)
Employees Retirement System v. Lewis
136 S.E.2d 518 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1964)
Drost v. Robinson
22 S.E.2d 475 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1942)
MacNeill v. Bazemore
21 S.E.2d 414 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1942)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
178 S.E. 534, 180 Ga. 166, 1935 Ga. LEXIS 206, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/board-of-commissioners-v-whittle-ga-1935.