Turner v. City of Atlanta

127 S.E. 652, 160 Ga. 216, 1925 Ga. LEXIS 123
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedApril 15, 1925
DocketNo. 4463
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 127 S.E. 652 (Turner v. City of Atlanta) 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
Turner v. City of Atlanta, 127 S.E. 652, 160 Ga. 216, 1925 Ga. LEXIS 123 (Ga. 1925).

Opinion

Russell, O. J.

1. It is provided in the act of 1910 (Acts 1910, p. 130) that “In all counties in this State having a population of one hundred and twenty-five thousand, or more, the board of county commissioners, or, if there be no such board, the ordinary of said county shall have the power to grant or refuse permission to establish, outside of the limits of incorporated towns, cemeteries, hospitals, sanatoriums, or similar institutions.” This act is applicable to the County of Fulton, and purports to confer authority upon the board of county commissioners of Fulton' County to grant or refuse the use of land outside of the limits of incorporated towns in the County of Fulton for burial purposes.

2. Having the power to grant or refuse permits for the location of a cemetery under the provisions of the above act, it is contrary to public policy for the board of county commissioners to grant a permit for the location of a cemetery to one of its members, or to a company or association in which one of its members is financially interested. Hardy [217]*217v. Gainesville, 121 Ga. 327 (48 S. E. 921); Tarver v. Dalton, 134 Ga. 462 (67 S. E. 929, 29 L. R. A. (N. S.) 183, 20 Ann. Cas. 281).

No. 4463. April 15, 1925. Henry McCalla and Key, McClelland & McClelland, for plaintiffs in error. Branch '& Howard, Underwood, Pomeroy & Haas, Arnold & Arnold, Colquitt & Conyers, and Charles B. Shelton, contra.

3. The judgment at the interlocutory hearing was in effect a final decree which the court could not render in advance of a trial; but the judge was authorized, under the pleadings and the evidence, to grant a temporary injunction until the further order of the court. The judgment rendered will be so modified that it will apply only until the further order of the court.

Judgment affirmed, with direction.

All the Justices concur.

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

Related

Department of Transportation v. Brooks
328 S.E.2d 705 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1985)
Montgomery v. City of Atlanta
134 S.E. 152 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1926)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
127 S.E. 652, 160 Ga. 216, 1925 Ga. LEXIS 123, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/turner-v-city-of-atlanta-ga-1925.