Walker v. Ferrill

58 Ga. 512
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedJanuary 15, 1877
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 58 Ga. 512 (Walker v. Ferrill) 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
Walker v. Ferrill, 58 Ga. 512 (Ga. 1877).

Opinion

Warner, Chief Justice.

The complainant filed his bill in the superior court of Chatham county, against the defendants, with a prayer for an injunction, of which the following is a substantial copy:

Humbly complaining, your orator, John O. Eerrill, ordinary of Chatham county, showeth, that by an act of the general assembly of the state of Georgia, approved 21st February, 1873, five commissioners and eai-offieio judges were created and organized for said county, who, under the terms of said act, were to be appointed and commissioned by the governor of said state for a period of four years; that on or about the 21st of February, the governor did appoint and commission, as said commissioners, for the period of four years as aforesaid, the following persons, to-wit: Geo. P. Harrison, Robert D. Walker, M. H. Meyer, William W. Paine, and Edward C. Anderson, Jr., all of said county; that, afterwards, said Harrison resigned his said office as commissioner, and William S. Lawton, of said county, was appointed in his place, to serve during his unexpired term ; and that on the — day of September, 1876, the said Anderson departed this life, and Christopher C. Casey, of said county, was appointed and commissioned in his place to serve during his unexpired term.

And your orator further shows, that there is no provision in said act creating said commissioners, providing that they should act until their successors are appointed; that there is no provision authorizing the appointment of any successor to them in said office; but that, by express terms of saidjact^ said commissioners were to be appointed and commissioned for a period of four years, and at the expiration of said term their term of office expired, and the office ceased to exist; and that neither in said act, nor in any act amendatory thereof, is the power given to the governor to appoint successors to said commissioners, or to continue them in office after the expiration of the said term of four year’s from the said 21st February 1873.

[514]*514And yonr orator further shows, that said act creating said commissioners, provides that they shall have the same juris* diction, to the exclusion of the ordinary, as was then exercised by said ordinary when sitting for county purposes; and provides further, that they shall have original jurisdiction in directing and controlling the property of the county, in levying taxes for said county, in examining and settling the accounts of officers having the care of money belonging to the county, in examining and settling all claims against the county, in establishing roads, bridges- and femes, in providing for the support of the poor, and for the promotion of health, in regulating peddling and fixing the cost therefor, in fixing the cost for license for the sale of spirituous liquors, and for the exhibition of shows, in superintending the registration of voters, establishing and abolishing election precincts, distributing the poor-fund, and receiving the bonds of county officers. And your orator shows that said act was amended by an act approved February 28th, 1814, so as to give said commissioners power to issue writs of habeas corpus in certain cases, to appoint special constables to fill vacancies in the office of constable, and to take charge of lunatics. All of which will more fully appear by reference to said acts, to which special reference is here made.

And your orator further shows, that under and by virtue of said act creating said commissioners, the ordinary was required to turn over to said commissioners all books and papers relating to the jurisdiction and powers conferred by said act, and was prohibited from exercising any of the powers or functions so conferred upon said commissioners, and that now said commissioners have ceased to exist, the jurisdiction and powers that were taken from the ordinary and vested in said commissioners, have been xestored to the ox*dinaxy, and that your orator, as ordinary, is alone entitled to exei’cise said jux-isdiction and powers, and to have in his keeping and custody all the books and papers appertaining thex-eto. And your orator shows that notwithstanding the [515]*515terms of said commissioners have expired, and that the period of time for which said commissioners were created and during which they were to exercise their functions, has terminated, yet the said Robert D. Walker, William S. Lawton, William W. Paine, Mathias H. Meyer and Christopher C. Casey, still claim and assume to act as said commissioners, and to discharge the duties and exercise the powers that were vested in said commissioners by the acts aforesaid, and still retain possession of the books and papers aforesaid, and have refused, and still refuse, to comply with the request and demand that your orator has made of them to cease to assume to act as said commissioners, and to turn over to your orator, as ordinary as aforesaid, all the books and papera appertaining to the office of commissioners, formerly existing and held by them. And your orator is informed that certain documents, purporting to be commissions, and purporting to re-appoint said Walker, Lawton, Paine, Meyer and Casey, as commissioners for the term of four years from February 21st, 18TY, are now in the possession of your honor, and that they, the said Walker, Law-ton, Paine, Meyer and Casey, have applied for them, and are requesting your honor to qualify them as said commissioners, although your orator avers that said pretended commissions are issued without any authority of law, and are wholly null and void.

Wherefore, as your orator can have no adequate relief except in a court of equity, to the end that the said Robt. D. Walker, William S. Lawton, William W. Paine, Mathias Ii. Meyer and Christopher C. Casey, may be restrained and enjoined from acting, and from assuming to act, as said commissioners, and from discharging and exercising, and from assuming to discharge and exercise, any of the rights, duties, powers and functions which vested in said commissioners under the act creating said commissioners, and the act of acts amendatory thereof, and from continuing to refuse to turn over to your orator, as ordinary as aforesaid, the books and papers appertaining to their offices as commissioners, [516]*516formerly existing, and from applying to your honor for said pretended commissions, and from qualifying under them; and that John Williamson, as treasurer of said county of Chatham, be restrained and enjoined from paying any drafts, warrants or orders drawn upon him as treasurer, by said Walker, Lawton, Paine, Meyer and Casey, acting or assuming to act as said commissioners, and that the defendants be required to fully answer this bill, and that your orator may have such further relief as may appear to be proper. May it please your honor to grant, not only the writ of injunction restraining and enjoining the defendants as is above set forth, but also the writ of subpoena requiring them to appear on a day certain, and under a penalty therein named, to answer your orator fully in the premises, and to stand to and perform such decree as may then and there be made against them.

The defendants, in pursuance of an order to show cause why the injunction prayed for should not be granted, appeared and demurred to the complainant’s bill, on the ground that it contained no equity which would authorize the chancellor to grant the injunction prayed for. The chancellor, after considering the demurrer, as well as the answers of the defendants, granted the injunction. Whereupon the defendants excepted.

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

Related

Mitchell v. Pittman
194 S.E. 369 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1937)
Pittman v. Ingram
190 S.E. 794 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1937)
Stephenson v. Powell
150 S.E. 641 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1929)
Bashlor v. Bacon
147 S.E. 762 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1929)
State Ex Rel. Markham v. Simpson
95 S.E. 106 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1918)
State v. Huff
92 S.E. 681 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1917)
Ainsworth v. Mobile Fruit & Trading Co.
29 S.E. 142 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1897)
Messenger v. Teagan
64 N.W. 499 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1895)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
58 Ga. 512, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/walker-v-ferrill-ga-1877.