Smith v. State of Georgia

121 S.E.2d 113, 217 Ga. 94, 1961 Ga. LEXIS 386
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedJuly 6, 1961
Docket21293
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 121 S.E.2d 113 (Smith v. State of Georgia) 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
Smith v. State of Georgia, 121 S.E.2d 113, 217 Ga. 94, 1961 Ga. LEXIS 386 (Ga. 1961).

Opinion

Candler, Justice.

Article 7, Section 6, Paragraphs 1 and 2, of the Constitution of 1877 were amended in 1938 so as to authorize Ware County and the City of Waycross to levy a tax, in addition to those each was then authorized to levy, not to exceed one mill on all of the taxable property in that city and county, for the purpose of acquiring and creating a fund to be set aside and used exclusively by each in assisting, promoting, and encouraging the location of new industries in the City of Waycross or elsewhere in Ware County (Ga. L. 1937, pp. 1129 and 1131). These two amendments were carried forward into the Constitution of 1945 (Code Ann. § 2-6301). The General Assembly in 1953 adopted a resolution proposing an amendment to Article 5 of the Constitution of 1945 (Ga. L. 1953, Nov.-Dee. Sess., p. 266). In part, Section 1 of the resolution provides: “That Article V of the Constitution of the State of Georgia is hereby amended by adding to the end thereof a new section and paragraph to be known as Section VIII, Paragraph I, which shall read as follows: . . . There is hereby created a body corporate and politic to be known as the ‘Waycross and Ware County Development Authority’ which shall be deemed to be an instrumentality of the State of Georgia and a public corporation, its scope and jurisdiction to be limited to the territory embraced by Ware County and the corporate limits of the City of Waycross. The County of Ware and the City of Waycross may contract with the Authority as a public corporation as provided by the Constitution of Georgia.” The resolution also provides that the Authority shall consist of eight members who shall have such control, duties, powers, and authority as it confers on it and as may be prescribed or provided for by the General Assembly of Georgia, and such additional powers as may be delegated to it by Ware County and the City of Waycross; that the members of the Authority shall be residents of Ware County within or without the corporate limits of the City of Waycross; that the General Assembly shall provide for the ap *96 pointment of the Authority’s members; that all lands and improvements thereon title to which is vested in the Authority, and all debentures and revenue-anticipation certificates issued by the Authority shall be exempt from State and local taxation; that the Authority is created for the purpose of developing and promoting for the public good and general welfare industry, agriculture, commerce, natural resources and vocational training, and the making of long-range plans for the co-ordination of such development, promotion, and expansion within its territorial limits'; that the Authority shall not be empowered or authorized in any manner to create a debt against the State of Georgia, the County of Ware, or the City of Way cross; that it is created for non-profit purposes; and that all property acquired by it and any funds realized by it shall be used continually and exclusively for the purposes for which it is created. Section 2 of the resolution authorizes and instructs the Governor to cause such proposed amendment to be published as provided in Article 13, Section 1, Paragraph 1, of the Constitution of 1945 as amended (Code § 2-8101), for two months previous to the time of the general election, at which the proposed amendment shall be submitted to the electors for ratification as provided for in that paragraph of the Constitution; and Section 2 of the resolution also provides that, if a majority of the electors qualified to vote for members of the General Assembly voting thereon in Ware County and also a majority of the electors voting thereon in the City of Way cross shall vote for ratification of the amendment, it shall become a part of the Constitution of Georgia when the Governor issues a proclamation to that effect. When this amendment was submitted to the qualified voters of the City of Way cross and of Ware County for ratification, Article 13, Section 1, Paragraph 1 of the Constitution of 1945 (Code § 2-8101) had been previously amended by adding thereto the following words: “Provided, however, that proposed amendments to the Constitution which only affect or apply to one or more counties, or one or more municipalities, shall only be submitted to the voters of the county or counties or to the voters of the municipality- or municipalities, which the proposed amendment affects or applies. If the amendment affects more than one *97 comity or more than one municipality, the total vote of the area shall be consolidated and a majority of the whole vote shall be required as a condition precedent to ratification. . .” (Ga. L. 1961, p. 681).

The proposed amendment was submitted for ratification to the qualified voters of Ware County and also to the qualified voters of the City of Waycross at the general election held in 1954, and the record shows that 2,685 voted in favor of its ratification and 431 voted against its ratification; that a majority of the votes so cast both in Ware County and in the City of Waycross were in favor of ratifying the proposed amendment; and that the Governor subsequently issued a proclamation declaring it to be a part of the Constitution of 1945, and no contention is here made that the proposed amendment was not legally ratified if it affects or applies only to the City of Waycross and Ware County. But as to proper ratification, see Cartledge v. City Council of Augusta, 189 Ga. 267, 269 (5 SE2d 661).

In 1955, the General Assembly passed an act captioned: “An act to create the Waycross and Ware County Development Authority; to provide the purpose, duties, control, organization and powers of said Authority; to provide for issuing revenue-anticipation certificates and for the validation of such certificates; to repeal conflicting laws; and for other purposes.” Ga. L. 1955, p. 2840. This act was introduced and passed as a local or special bill, and in compliance with the provisions of Article 3, Section 7, Paragraph 15 of the Constitution of 1945 (Code § 2-1915). Section 6 (1) of the act authorizes the Authority to issue revenue-anticipation certificates for the purpose of paying all or any part of the cost of any project of the Authority, and provides that the revenue-anticipation certificates which it is authorized to issue must be issued and validated under and in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Revenue Certificate Law of 1937 (Ga. L. 1937, pp. 761-774), as subsequently amended in 1939 (Ga. L. 1939, p. 362). Section 7 of the act exempts from State and local taxation all lands and improvements and personal property the title to which is vested in the Authority, and all debentures, notes, bonds, and revenue-an *98 ticipation certificates issued by it. The legislature in 1957 (Ga. L. 1957, p. 36) passed an act substituting the words “revenue bonds” for the words “revenue-anticipation certificates” where-ever the latter words appear in the Revenue Certificate Law of 1937, as amended in 1939.

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

Related

Holmes v. CHATHAM AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY
505 S.E.2d 225 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1998)
Building Authority of Fulton County v. State
321 S.E.2d 97 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1984)
Odom v. Union City Downtown Development Authority
305 S.E.2d 110 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1983)
Frazer v. City of Albany
265 S.E.2d 581 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1980)
City of Lithonia v. DeKalb County Board of Education
200 S.E.2d 698 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1973)
Camp v. Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority
189 S.E.2d 56 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1972)
King v. Peagler
178 S.E.2d 897 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1970)
Mitchell v. North Carolina Industrial Development Financing Authority
159 S.E.2d 745 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1968)
Mitchell v. NORTH CAROLINA INDUS. DEVELOP. FIN. AU.
159 S.E.2d 745 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1968)
Smith v. State of Georgia
150 S.E.2d 868 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1966)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
121 S.E.2d 113, 217 Ga. 94, 1961 Ga. LEXIS 386, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-state-of-georgia-ga-1961.