White Provision Co. v. City of Atlanta

Court of Appeals of Georgia

White Provision Co. v. City of Atlanta

145 S.E. 109, 38 Ga. App. 648, 1928 Ga. App. LEXIS 371

Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided October 2, 1928·No. 19041·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Broxles, C. J.

1. Where a fi. fa. based on a sewer assessment is levied upon abutting property, “the fact that the abutting property, in its present condition, may not be specially benefited by construction of the sewer would not render the assessment illegal.” Neal v. Decatur, 142 Ga. 205 (2) (82 S. E. 546), and cit.

2. Where the construction of a sewerage system by a city is authorized, “the legislature determines expenditures and amounts to be raised for their payment, the whole discussion and all questions of prudence and propriety and justice being confided to its discretion. It may err, but the courts can not review its discretion.” French v. Barber Asphalt Co., 181 U. S. 324 (21 Sup. Ct. 625, 45 L. ed. 879); Ga. R. Co. v. Decatur, 137 Ga. 537, 542 (73 S. E. 830, 40 L. R. A. (N. S.) 935).

3. The instant case falls within the general rules as enunciated in the preceding paragraphs; and the court did not err in sustaining the motion to dismiss the affidavit of illegality.

Judgment affirmed.

Lulce, J., concurs. Bloodworth, J., disqualified.

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

Broxles, C. J.

1. Where a fi. fa. based on a sewer assessment is levied upon abutting property, “the fact that the abutting property, in its present condition, may not be specially benefited by construction of the sewer would not render the assessment illegal.” Neal v. Decatur, 142 Ga. 205 (2) (82 S. E. 546), and cit.

2. Where the construction of a sewerage system by a city is authorized, “the legislature determines expenditures and amounts to be raised for their payment, the whole discussion and all questions of prudence and propriety and justice being confided to its discretion. It may err, but the courts can not review its discretion.” French v. Barber Asphalt Co., 181 U. S. 324 (21 Sup. Ct. 625, 45 L. ed. 879); Ga. R. Co. v. Decatur, 137 Ga. 537, 542 (73 S. E. 830, 40 L. R. A. (N. S.) 935).

3. The instant case falls within the general rules as enunciated in the preceding paragraphs; and the court did not err in sustaining the motion to dismiss the affidavit of illegality.

Judgment affirmed.

Lulce, J., concurs. Bloodworth, J., disqualified.

White Provision Co. v. City of Atlanta, 145 S.E. 109, 38 Ga. App. 648, 1928 Ga. App. LEXIS 371 (Ga. Ct. App. 1928).

Pincite

145 S.E. 109 (White Provision Co. v. City of Atlanta) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related