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

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedOctober 2, 1928

Docket19041

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 145 S.E. 109 (White Provision Co. v. City of Atlanta) 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

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

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