Houston v. Thomas

146 S.E. 908, 168 Ga. 67, 1929 Ga. LEXIS 71
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedFebruary 15, 1929
DocketNo. 6474
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 146 S.E. 908 (Houston v. Thomas) 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
Houston v. Thomas, 146 S.E. 908, 168 Ga. 67, 1929 Ga. LEXIS 71 (Ga. 1929).

Opinion

Atkinson, J.

On June 24, 1927, a petition to the ordinary of Early County was filed, for call of an election in the Lucille Consolidated School District, upon the question of levying a local tax for support of the schools. On June 27 the ordinary called an election to be held at Byrop Schoolhouse on July 16, 1927. An election was held at the time and place as provided in .the order. The trustees of the Lucille Consolidated School District issued an order dated August 2, 1927, calling an election to.be held September 9, 1927, “at the Byron Schoolhouse” in said district, to determine whether bonds shall be issued for the purpose of building and equipping a schoolhouse for said consolidated school district. The trustees then proceeded to advertise the notice of election. C. P. Houston, alleging himself to be a resident and tax-payer, instituted an action against the trustees, seeking to enjoin them from levying a, local tax on the basis of the election relating to that subject, and [68]*68from further advertisement of the notice of election relating to issuance of bonds, and from holding that election. The judge sustained demurrers to portions of the petition and amendments thereto, and refused a temporary injunction. The plaintiff excepted.

Under the pleadings and the evidence the judge was authorized to find that the County of Early had been lawfully laid out into school districts, and that the Lucille Consolidated School District had been lawfully created and was a valid political subdivision of the State, within the meaning of the statutes referred to in the subsequent divisions of this decision.

It is declared by statute: '“Whenever the citizens of any school district wish to supplement the funds received from the State public-school fund by levying a tax for educational purposes, they shall present a petition from one fourth of the qualified voters of the district to the ordinary, who shall order the election not earlier, than twenty days, nor later than sixty days, after the petition is received: Provided, that notice of the same shall be posted in at least three conspicuous places in the district ten days prior to the election. The election shall be held at a time and place prescribed by the proper authorities, and under rules governing ordinary elections. Those favoring local taxation for public schools shall vote 'For local taxation for public schools.’ Those opposed shall vote 'Against local taxation for public schools.’ The returns of said election shall be made to the ordinary of the county, who shall declare the result, and two thirds of those voting shall be necessary to carry the election for local taxation for public schools. No person shall vote in said election except the regularly qualified voters residing in the district six months prior to the election. An election for the same purpose shall not be held oftener than every twelve months.” Civil Code (1910), § 1535, 8 Park’s Code Supp. 1922, § 1438(h) : Michie’s 1926 Code, § 1551(133) : Ga. Laws 1919, pp. 288, 338, sec. 124.

(a) The words “proper authorities,” as employed in the sentence, “The election shall be held at a time and place prescribed by the proper authorities, and under rules governing .ordinary elections,” refer to the ordinary in the several counties of the State, that officer being the one to authorize calls for such elections and to receive the election returns and to declare the result.

(&) The phrase, “under rules governing ordinary elections,” [69]*69as employed in the foregoing excerpt, refers to the general law relating to the manner of holding elections for members of the General Assembly as embodied in the Civil Code (1910), §§ 76 et seq.

(c) The phrase, “under rules governing ordinary elections,” must be construed in connection with the other provisions of the statute considered in its entirety; and in so far as the “rules governing ordinary elections,” as defined above, conflict with any of the provisions of the said statute, the former must yield to the latter.

(d) The territory included in the school district might include territory not embraced in the militia district in which the general election precinct existed, and the general law makes no provision by which voters residing in the school district outside of the militia district in which the election precinct is located may vote at such precincts.

(e) Under such construction of the statute the ordinary of a county to whom a petition is presented to call an election upon the question of levying a local tax for the support of public schools may prescribe in his order the time and place in the school district for holding the election. He is not required to order the election held on any regular election day or at regular election precincts that may have been established by the general law for holding elections for members of the General Assembly.

(jf) The statute first above quoted must be considered also in connection with section 141 of the Code of School Laws (Ga. L. 1919, pp. 288, 345;'8 Park’s Code Supp. 1922, § 1438 (y); Michie’s Code 1926, § 1551(153), which is in identical language with § 1544, included in article 9 of chapter 4 of title 11 in the Code of 1910, providing: “All elections held under the provisions of this Article shall be governed as to registration and qualifications of voters as the general law governing special elections provides.”

(g) The said statute must also be considered in connection with '“the general law governing special elections.” The law on that subject was embodied in § 61 of the Civil Code of 1910. The act of 1911 (Ga. Laws 1911, p. 167) expressly declared that code section “repealed” and substituted other provisions relating to the subject. Such was the status when the Code of School Laws was enacted in 1919, which contained the provision quoted in the-paragraph next preceding.

(h) When the statute first above quoted is considered and [70]*70construed as hereinbefore indicated, it is sufficiently definite, and it makes ample provision for holding elections in consolidated school districts on the question of levying local taxes for the support of public schools, for registration of voters for such elections, and for ascertainment of the result.

(i) The said statute does not declare that the amount of tax desired to be levied shall be “specified” in the petition to the ordinary, or that the petition should specifically allege that the petitioners constitute “one fourth of the qualified voters of the district.”

Where a petition to the ordinary for call of an election under the statute is in fact signed by one fourth of the qualified voters in the district, but does not mention the amount of the tax to be levied, and the ordinary entertains the petition and grants an order calling an election in which is stated the amount of tax desired to be levied and that petitioners constitute one fourth of the qualified voters of the district, neither the petition nor the order calling the election will be void on the ground that the petition fails to “specify” the amount of the tax, or to allege that the petitioners constitute one fourth of the qualified voters of the district. This ruling comports and is not in conflict with the decision of this court in Montgomery v. Atlanta, 162 Ga. 534 (134 S. E. 152, 47 A. L. R. 233).

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

Related

Sims v. Kennedy
193 S.E. 876 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1937)
Herndon v. State
176 S.E. 620 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1934)
West v. Standard Accident Insurance
166 S.E. 761 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1932)
Crye v. Pearce
165 S.E. 121 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1932)
Terrell v. Forest Park Consolidated School District
165 S.E. 122 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1932)
Gazaway v. Godfrey
163 S.E. 480 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1932)
Price v. Hodges
159 S.E. 241 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1931)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
146 S.E. 908, 168 Ga. 67, 1929 Ga. LEXIS 71, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/houston-v-thomas-ga-1929.