Daniel v. Putnam County

38 S.E. 980, 113 Ga. 570, 1901 Ga. LEXIS 304
Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided May 23, 1901·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Eish, J.

The plaintiff brought an action, in the statutory form, against Putnam County, upon an open account for “ vaccine points ” furnished the defendant. At the trial he offered an amendment to his petition, in which he alleged: “The goods, the value of which, is sued for, were certain vaccine points furnished to and for the use of the County of Putnam, through and by the orders of the com[571] missioners of roads and revenues of said county, and which were actually received and used by and for the benefit of the county; and the contract which said county authorities made to pay for said goods so purchased was one authorized to be made by the constitution of the State and the laws passed in conformity therewith, and was within the legal competency of the county; and said debt so created is one for which the county may levy and collect taxes to pay; and therefore the county is liable to suit therefor.” The court refused to allow the amendment, and sustained a motion to dismiss the petition on the ground that it did not set forth a cause of action. Without stopping to inquire whether the amendment should have been allowed, and granting, for the sake of the argument, that it should have been, the ease really turns upon whether, taking the petition and the amendment together, a cause of action was stated. The counties of this State can only raise revenue by taxation for certain specified purposes. They can only levy taxes within the limitations of and for the purposes specified in the constitution. Art. 7, sec. 6, par. 2, of the constitution (Civil Code, §5892), provides: “The General Assembly shall not have power to delegate to any county the right to levy a tax for any purpose, éxcept for -educational purposes in instructing children in the elementary branches of an English education only; to build and repair the public buildings and bridges; to maintain and support prisoners; to pay jurors and coroners, and for litigation, quarantine, roads, and expenses of courts; to support paupers, and pay debts heretofore existing.” Under this paragraph of the constitution did the commissioners of roads and revenues of Putnam County have authority to bind the county by a contract with the plaintiff for the purchase of “vaccine points,” to be furnished by him “for the use of the county,” in preventing the spread of the smallpox within its borders ? Clearly they could not bind the county by the creation of a debt for the payment of which it had no power to levy a tax. It is perfectly plain that they had no power to bind the county in this matter, unless the word “ quarantine,” as used in the above-quoted paragraph of the constitution, is broad enough in its meaning to include the purchase of vaccine matter to be used in preventing the spread of the smallpox. The plaintiff recognizes this, and contends that the vaccine matter which he furnished to the county authorities was purchased and used by them for “ quarT [572] antine” purposes. ■ We do not think that this is a sound contention. To quarantine persons infected with, or who have been exposed to, the smallpox is one way of preventing the spread of the disease in a community; to vaccinate people who are not infected with the disease, in order that they may become immune therefrom, is another way of accomplishing the same purpose. But vaccination is one thing and quarantine is another. To quarantine persons means to keep them, when suspected of having contracted or been exposed to an infectious disease, out of a community, or to confine them to a given place therein, and to prevent intercourse between them and the people generally of such community. Persons who are merely vaccinated, and then allowed to go when and where they please and to mingle freely with the other members of the community, are in no sense of the word “ quarantined.” The preventive measure adopted in their case tends to protect them both from contracting the disease and from being quarantined. It is true that the object sought to be accomplished in each instance is the same, the prevention of the dissemination of the disease in the community; but the means resorted to for this purpose in the one instance is different from the means resorted to in the other.

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

Daniel v. Putnam County, 38 S.E. 980, 113 Ga. 570, 1901 Ga. LEXIS 304 (Ga. 1901).

38 S.E. 980 (Daniel v. Putnam County) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Wright v. Brown
356 A.2d 176 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1975)
Smith v. State
129 S.E. 542 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1925)
Bakksdale v. Hayes
134 Ga. 348 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1910)
Jefferson County v. Young
86 S.W. 985 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1905)