Rogers v. Tattnall County

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Rogers v. Tattnall County

116 S.E. 545, 29 Ga. App. 779, 1923 Ga. App. LEXIS 190

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 27, 1923

Docket13591

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 116 S.E. 545 (Rogers v. Tattnall County) 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

Rogers v. Tattnall County, 116 S.E. 545, 29 Ga. App. 779, 1923 Ga. App. LEXIS 190 (Ga. Ct. App. 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

Stephens, J.

1. The constitutional provision prohibiting damage to private property for public use without just compensation does not afford any right to compensation to a person who has suffered incidental damage resulting from the improper and negligent performance by public officials of an act authorized by law. And in this State one who has suffered damage of this character must establish his right to recover by some statutory authority, either express or implied. , Civil Code (1910), § 384.

2. There- being no statutory authority authorizing an owner of cattle to recover against a county for damage sustained as a result of the death of the cattle, caused by negligence of county officials when dipping the cattle for the purpose of tick eradication as provided .by law, the owner has no right to recover against the county for •such damage.

3. The petition was properly dismissed on demurrer.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Bell, J., concur.

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

Stephens, J.

1. The constitutional provision prohibiting damage to private property for public use without just compensation does not afford any right to compensation to a person who has suffered incidental damage resulting from the improper and negligent performance by public officials of an act authorized by law. And in this State one who has suffered damage of this character must establish his right to recover by some statutory authority, either express or implied. , Civil Code (1910), § 384.

2. There- being no statutory authority authorizing an owner of cattle to recover against a county for damage sustained as a result of the death of the cattle, caused by negligence of county officials when dipping the cattle for the purpose of tick eradication as provided .by law, the owner has no right to recover against the county for •such damage.

3. The petition was properly dismissed on demurrer.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Bell, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

116 S.E. 545, 29 Ga. App. 779, 1923 Ga. App. LEXIS 190, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rogers-v-tattnall-county-gactapp-1923.

Opinion

3. The petition was properly dismissed on demurrer.

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack