Pearson v. County of Tift

Supreme Court of Georgia

Pearson v. County of Tift

132 S.E.2d 710, 219 Ga. 254

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 5, 1963

Docket22112

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 132 S.E.2d 710 (Pearson v. County of Tift) 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

Pearson v. County of Tift, 132 S.E.2d 710, 219 Ga. 254 (Ga. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

Duckworth, Chief Justice.

1. Since, under Mayor &c. of Savannah v. Collins, 211 Ga. 191 (84 SE2d 454), the county could either condemn property or use property it owns for governmental purposes, even though such use violates a zoning ordinance of a municipality in said county, we do not stop to pass upon the validity of the zoning ordinance or the zoning map which was not attached thereto, since, if they are valid, they would not constitute a valid reason for enjoining the county from using its property for governmental purposes.

2. The county commissioners had authority under Ga. L. 1917, p. 396, creating the commission, to engage in the erection and maintenance of public buildings. Thus the allegations of the petition, as amended, that the construction is “not for necessary governmental purposes” and the commission is without authority to acquire lands to construct thereon a building of the kind and character described (commercial) and “for the purpose of building an ASC Committee office,” amount to mere conclusions of the pleader or are so vague and indefinite as to fail to show for what purpose the construction is being done. This court can not take judicial notice of what “ASC Committee office” means, and, it not being alleged otherwise, the commissioners will be deemed to have acted within the scope of their authority.

3. The court did not err in disallowing the amendment, and in sustaining the demurrer and in dismissing the petition.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Duckworth, Chief Justice.

1. Since, under Mayor &c. of Savannah v. Collins, 211 Ga. 191 (84 SE2d 454), the county could either condemn property or use property it owns for governmental purposes, even though such use violates a zoning ordinance of a municipality in said county, we do not stop to pass upon the validity of the zoning ordinance or the zoning map which was not attached thereto, since, if they are valid, they would not constitute a valid reason for enjoining the county from using its property for governmental purposes.

2. The county commissioners had authority under Ga. L. 1917, p. 396, creating the commission, to engage in the erection and maintenance of public buildings. Thus the allegations of the petition, as amended, that the construction is “not for necessary governmental purposes” and the commission is without authority to acquire lands to construct thereon a building of the kind and character described (commercial) and “for the purpose of building an ASC Committee office,” amount to mere conclusions of the pleader or are so vague and indefinite as to fail to show for what purpose the construction is being done. This court can not take judicial notice of what “ASC Committee office” means, and, it not being alleged otherwise, the commissioners will be deemed to have acted within the scope of their authority.

3. The court did not err in disallowing the amendment, and in sustaining the demurrer and in dismissing the petition.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

132 S.E.2d 710, 219 Ga. 254, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pearson-v-county-of-tift-ga-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack