Hogg v. Housing Authority of the City of Rome

Supreme Court of Georgia

Hogg v. Housing Authority of the City of Rome

5 S.E.2d 431, 189 Ga. 164, 1939 Ga. LEXIS 667

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedOctober 27, 1939

Docket13025.

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 5 S.E.2d 431 (Hogg v. Housing Authority of the City of Rome) 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

Hogg v. Housing Authority of the City of Rome, 5 S.E.2d 431, 189 Ga. 164, 1939 Ga. LEXIS 667 (Ga. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

Jenkins, Justice.

1. As to the only two essential questions raised in this petition for injunction by “residents, citizens, and taxpayers of the City of Rome, State of Georgia, and of the United States,” against the housing authority of that city, created under the “housing-authorities law” of this State, as amended (Ga. L. 1937, p. 210; Ga. L. 1939, p. 112), this case is determined adversely to the petitioners by the rulings made on these and other questions in Barber v. Housing Authority of Rome, 189 Ga. 155 (5 S. E. 2d, 425).

(a) As to the first question, the alleged invalidity of the resolution by the city commission creating the defendant housing authority, on the ground that there was no previous hearing or investigation of the facts as a basis for the finding that a need for this authority existed (assuming that the petitioners had such an interest as would authorize this attack), it is without merit, for the reasons stated in division 2 of the opinion in the Barber case.

(b) As to the second question, the alleged invalidity of the defendant’s expenditure of Federal funds, the attack fails for the reasons stated in division 4 of the opinion in the Barber case. The fact that there the petitioners were merely owners of the land sought to be condemned by the defendant, while here they proceed as “residents and taxpayers” of the city, State, and United States, would not make the position of the present petitioners any stronger than that of the petitioner in Mass. v. Mellon, 262 U. S. 447 (4), 468-488 (43 Sup. Ct. 597, 67 L. ed. 1078), cited with other decisions in the Barber case, since in the Mellon ease the suit involving Federal funds was also brought by a “Federal taxpayer.”

2. Under these rulings, the court properly dismissed the petition on genera] demurrer and on special demurrers to the essential paragraphs.

Judgment affirmed.

AU the Justices concur. *165 Maddox & Griffin, for plaintiffs. Wright cO Willingham, Dean Covington, and Leon Covington, for defendant.

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

Jenkins, Justice.

1. As to the only two essential questions raised in this petition for injunction by “residents, citizens, and taxpayers of the City of Rome, State of Georgia, and of the United States,” against the housing authority of that city, created under the “housing-authorities law” of this State, as amended (Ga. L. 1937, p. 210; Ga. L. 1939, p. 112), this case is determined adversely to the petitioners by the rulings made on these and other questions in Barber v. Housing Authority of Rome, 189 Ga. 155 (5 S. E. 2d, 425).

(a) As to the first question, the alleged invalidity of the resolution by the city commission creating the defendant housing authority, on the ground that there was no previous hearing or investigation of the facts as a basis for the finding that a need for this authority existed (assuming that the petitioners had such an interest as would authorize this attack), it is without merit, for the reasons stated in division 2 of the opinion in the Barber case.

(b) As to the second question, the alleged invalidity of the defendant’s expenditure of Federal funds, the attack fails for the reasons stated in division 4 of the opinion in the Barber case. The fact that there the petitioners were merely owners of the land sought to be condemned by the defendant, while here they proceed as “residents and taxpayers” of the city, State, and United States, would not make the position of the present petitioners any stronger than that of the petitioner in Mass. v. Mellon, 262 U. S. 447 (4), 468-488 (43 Sup. Ct. 597, 67 L. ed. 1078), cited with other decisions in the Barber case, since in the Mellon ease the suit involving Federal funds was also brought by a “Federal taxpayer.”

2. Under these rulings, the court properly dismissed the petition on genera] demurrer and on special demurrers to the essential paragraphs.

Judgment affirmed.

AU the Justices concur. *165 Maddox & Griffin, for plaintiffs. Wright cO Willingham, Dean Covington, and Leon Covington, for defendant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 S.E.2d 431, 189 Ga. 164, 1939 Ga. LEXIS 667, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hogg-v-housing-authority-of-the-city-of-rome-ga-1939.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack