Mayor of Madison v. Wade

16 S.E. 21, 88 Ga. 699, 1892 Ga. LEXIS 86
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedJanuary 19, 1892
StatusPublished
Cited by20 cases

This text of 16 S.E. 21 (Mayor of Madison v. Wade) 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
Mayor of Madison v. Wade, 16 S.E. 21, 88 Ga. 699, 1892 Ga. LEXIS 86 (Ga. 1892).

Opinion

Judgment affirmed.

Municipal corporations. Local statutes. Constitutional law. Schools. Elections. ^Registration. Before Judge Jenkins. Morgan county. At chambers, September 12, 1891.

On the petition of Wade et al., citizens and taxpayers of Madison, the mayor and council of that city were enjoined from collecting a tax assessed for the support of public- schools, from establishing such schools, etc., under an election held by virtue of the act of the legislature, approved October 25, 1889. By'the act ot February 1, 1877, the mayor and council were “empowered and authorized to enact such ordinance, or ordinances, providing for the registration of the voters in corporate elections in the city, which in their discretion shall conduce to the interest and peace of said city, not in conflict with the constitution and laws of the State,” etc. The mayor and council adopted an ordinance providing that on the 1st of January the clerk of council should open a book for the registration of voters, which book should be' evidence of a voter having registered; that the qualifications for registration should be the same as those prescribed for voters for members of the General Assembly; that the registration should cease and the book be closed on the tenth day preceding the annual election of mayor and aldermen, etc. The day fixed for the election of mayor and aldermen is the first Wednesday in April. The clerk opened a registration book on or before Januaiy 1, 1891, kept it open until March 21, 1891, and then closed it. No book was opened for registration for the school- election which took place on July. 16, 1891; and no person who had failed to register prior to March 21, 1891, or had become qualified to vote between that date and the date of the school election, had an opportunity to register therefor. The registration list shown by the book was furnished to the managers of the school' 'election to [701]*701guide and control them therein. They were not instructed not to permit any one to vote whose name was not on the registration book, but they did not so permit any one whose name was not on the list. The declared result was, 269 votes for and 18 votes against public schools. At the last preceding municipal election 249 votes were polled. The registration list contained 406 names, but the mayor and council, on investigation, determined that a number of these were actually not qualified voters, there being three minors, two convicts, etc.

Foster & Butler and H. T. Lewis, for plaintiff' in error. J. A. Billups and Calvin George, contra.

Among the grounds alleged in the petition why the election was illegal and void were: The act of 1889 is unconstitutional in that it provides, “if at any election herein provided for two thirds of the qualified voters votiug at such election shall vote for free schools,” etc., instead of providing that if two thirds of the. qualified voters of the city shall vote for free schools, etc. There was no law authorizing registration for a special election of this character, hut if the act of 1877 applies to such special elections, there should have been a new registration thereunder, and the mayor and council wore not authorized to turn over to the managers the list closed on March 21, and to instruct them not to receive the vote of any person whose name was not thereon. Other grounds of attack on the result of the election, as declared by the mayor and council, need not be stated here.

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

Related

In Re Nomination Paper of Nader
860 A.2d 1 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 2004)
Robertson v. Temple
61 S.E.2d 285 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1950)
Franklin v. Harper
55 S.E.2d 221 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1949)
McKnight v. City of Decatur
37 S.E.2d 915 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1946)
Piuser v. City of Sioux City
262 N.W. 551 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1935)
Smith v. Board of Education
164 S.E. 41 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1932)
Jones v. Darby
161 S.E. 835 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1931)
Davis v. Warde
118 S.E. 378 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1923)
Goolsby v. Stephens
117 S.E. 439 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1923)
Chapman v. Sumner Consolidated School District
109 S.E. 129 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1921)
Garrett v. Cowart
101 S.E. 186 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1919)
State v. Weaver
122 Tenn. 198 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1909)
Coleman v. Board of Education
63 S.E. 41 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1908)
Mayor of Chipley v. Layfield
47 S.E. 539 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1904)
McKnight v. Mayor of Senoia
42 S.E. 256 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1902)
Floyd County v. State
38 S.E. 37 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1901)
Wells v. Ragsdale
29 S.E. 165 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1897)
Carver v. Mayor of Dawson
25 S.E. 832 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1896)
Mayor of Decatur v. Wilson
23 S.E. 240 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1895)
Davis v. City Council
17 S.E. 110 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1893)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
16 S.E. 21, 88 Ga. 699, 1892 Ga. LEXIS 86, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mayor-of-madison-v-wade-ga-1892.