Etheridge v. City of Atlanta

Supreme Court of Georgia

Etheridge v. City of Atlanta

145 S.E. 84, 167 Ga. 222, 1928 Ga. LEXIS 128

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedOctober 9, 1928

DocketNo. 6582

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 145 S.E. 84 (Etheridge v. City of Atlanta) 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

Etheridge v. City of Atlanta, 145 S.E. 84, 167 Ga. 222, 1928 Ga. LEXIS 128 (Ga. 1928).

Pincite

Opinions

Gilbert, J.

1. The assessment against respective abutting property owners for the construction of sewers, at $1.50 per lineal foot, is fixed by the amendment of the charter of the City of Atlanta, enacted by the [223]*223General Assembly in 1925, and is therefore binding upon the city. Ga. Laws 1925, pp. 839, 840.

No. 6582. October 9, 1928.

2. The act of the General Assembly cited next above does not contravene the due-process clause of the State constitution (Civil Code, § 6359) for any reason assigned.

3. In fixing the amount to be assessed against 'owners of abutting property to cover the cost of constructing lateral sewers and connections therewith to private property, the cost of building, repairing, and upkeep of trunk sewers and disposal plants may be considered; and for the privilege of connecting with such trunk lines a reasonable sum may be added to the actual cost of lateral sewers and property connections. The amount added, in the present case, is not shown to be unreasonable or confiscatory. Georgia R. &c. Co. v. Decatur, 137 Ga. 537 (2), 541 (73 S. E. 830, 40 L. R. A. (N. S.) 935).

4. It would seem only reasonable and fair to the property-owner for the city to include in one assessment and one fi. fa. the total amount assessed, especially where the property is all in one body, though divided into several lots. We must presume that the city will yet comply with this request, although its refusal is not alone ground for reversing the judgment.

5. The court did not err in refusing to grant an interlocutory injunction for any reason assigned. Moreover, while that issue is not raised, the petitioner had an adequate remedy at law by illegality, and for that reason the court did not err.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except Russell, G. J., and Sill, J., who dissent. H. A. Etheridge, for plaintiff. J. L. Mayson and G. S. Winn, for defendant.

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

Gilbert, J.

1. The assessment against respective abutting property owners for the construction of sewers, at $1.50 per lineal foot, is fixed by the amendment of the charter of the City of Atlanta, enacted by the [223]*223General Assembly in 1925, and is therefore binding upon the city. Ga. Laws 1925, pp. 839, 840.

No. 6582. October 9, 1928.

2. The act of the General Assembly cited next above does not contravene the due-process clause of the State constitution (Civil Code, § 6359) for any reason assigned.

3. In fixing the amount to be assessed against 'owners of abutting property to cover the cost of constructing lateral sewers and connections therewith to private property, the cost of building, repairing, and upkeep of trunk sewers and disposal plants may be considered; and for the privilege of connecting with such trunk lines a reasonable sum may be added to the actual cost of lateral sewers and property connections. The amount added, in the present case, is not shown to be unreasonable or confiscatory. Georgia R. &c. Co. v. Decatur, 137 Ga. 537 (2), 541 (73 S. E. 830, 40 L. R. A. (N. S.) 935).

4. It would seem only reasonable and fair to the property-owner for the city to include in one assessment and one fi. fa. the total amount assessed, especially where the property is all in one body, though divided into several lots. We must presume that the city will yet comply with this request, although its refusal is not alone ground for reversing the judgment.

5. The court did not err in refusing to grant an interlocutory injunction for any reason assigned. Moreover, while that issue is not raised, the petitioner had an adequate remedy at law by illegality, and for that reason the court did not err.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except Russell, G. J., and Sill, J., who dissent. H. A. Etheridge, for plaintiff. J. L. Mayson and G. S. Winn, for defendant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

145 S.E. 84, 167 Ga. 222, 1928 Ga. LEXIS 128, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/etheridge-v-city-of-atlanta-ga-1928.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack