Randall Bros. v. City of Atlanta

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Randall Bros. v. City of Atlanta

95 S.E. 1016, 22 Ga. App. 301, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 317

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 15, 1918

Docket9127

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 95 S.E. 1016 (Randall Bros. v. City of Atlanta) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Randall Bros. v. City of Atlanta, 95 S.E. 1016, 22 Ga. App. 301, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 317 (Ga. Ct. App. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

Jenkins, J.

1. It is within the discretion of the municipal authorities of the City of Atlanta to judge whether or not a pavement is worn out, and to provide for 'its renewal by the use of any material which it may decide upon, the only limitation upon such authority being that such discretion must not be arbitrarily or unreasonably exercised. Burckhardt v. Atlanta, 103 Ga. 302 (4) (30 S. E. 32); Regenstein v. Atlanta, 98 Ga. 167 (25 S. E. 428).

2. Where in pursuance of law assessment for such purpose has been made' and execution issued therefor, it is too late for the owner of abutting property to contest, by affidavit of illegality, such discretionary power of the municipal authorities. Draper v. Atlanta, 126 Ga. 649 (55 S. E. 929).

3. Where the owner of abutting property had sold to the city a strip pf land for the. purpose of widening the street, and by the terms of sale it was provided that the brick pavement as then laid in front of the property should be- removed by and at the cost of the city and relaid upon the new sidewalk to be established, so as to. be in as good condition as it was prior to the sale, the fact that such old material was not actually laid down upon such newly acquired sidewalk would not render nugatory a condemnation .proceeding for the purpose of providing a new and different pavement.

Judgment affirmed.

Wade, O. J., and Dulce, J., eoneur.

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

Jenkins, J.

1. It is within the discretion of the municipal authorities of the City of Atlanta to judge whether or not a pavement is worn out, and to provide for 'its renewal by the use of any material which it may decide upon, the only limitation upon such authority being that such discretion must not be arbitrarily or unreasonably exercised. Burckhardt v. Atlanta, 103 Ga. 302 (4) (30 S. E. 32); Regenstein v. Atlanta, 98 Ga. 167 (25 S. E. 428).

2. Where in pursuance of law assessment for such purpose has been made' and execution issued therefor, it is too late for the owner of abutting property to contest, by affidavit of illegality, such discretionary power of the municipal authorities. Draper v. Atlanta, 126 Ga. 649 (55 S. E. 929).

3. Where the owner of abutting property had sold to the city a strip pf land for the. purpose of widening the street, and by the terms of sale it was provided that the brick pavement as then laid in front of the property should be- removed by and at the cost of the city and relaid upon the new sidewalk to be established, so as to. be in as good condition as it was prior to the sale, the fact that such old material was not actually laid down upon such newly acquired sidewalk would not render nugatory a condemnation .proceeding for the purpose of providing a new and different pavement.

Judgment affirmed.

Wade, O. J., and Dulce, J., eoneur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

95 S.E. 1016, 22 Ga. App. 301, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 317, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/randall-bros-v-city-of-atlanta-gactapp-1918.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack