Murray v. City of Tifton
This text of 143 Ga. 301 (Murray v. City of Tifton) 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.
Opinion
The venue of a statutory proceeding under the Civil Code, § 445 et seq., to validate municipal bonds, is in the county in which the municipality is situated. Ray v. City of Lavonia, 141 Ga. 626 (81 S. E. 884). In such a proceeding, where the judge on presentation of the petition issued a rule nisi returnable in a different county than that of the venue, and, at the time and place appointed in the rule, passed another order to the effect that the hearing was “continued and transferred” to a designated time and place in the county of the venue, but there was no publication of any notice as required by law that the hearing would be had at such time and place, the judge was without jurisdiction to proceed with the hearing and render final judgment.
(a) It having been held by the court, in the case above cited, that in so far as the statute purported to authorize jurisdiction in a county other than that of the municipality it was unconstitutional, and the plaintiffs in error having raised the point of want of jurisdiction, it was not necessary for them, in support of the objection, again to specifically attack the act as unconstitutional,
(&) The court being without jurisdiction, it was erroneous to enter-final judgment validating the bonds.
Judgment reversed,.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
143 Ga. 301, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/murray-v-city-of-tifton-ga-1915.