Williams v. Richmond County

243 S.E.2d 55, 241 Ga. 89, 1978 Ga. LEXIS 880
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedMarch 7, 1978
Docket33058, 33059
StatusPublished

This text of 243 S.E.2d 55 (Williams v. Richmond County) 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
Williams v. Richmond County, 243 S.E.2d 55, 241 Ga. 89, 1978 Ga. LEXIS 880 (Ga. 1978).

Opinion

Bowles, Justice.

The Commissioners of Roads & Revenues of Richmond County, Georgia, individually as citizens and taxpayers of the county, and collectively in their official capacities, filed a complaint against Phillip Williams, individually and as alleged Coroner of Richmond County, and Iree W. Pope, individually and as Probate Judge of Richmond County, seeking relief by way of declaratory judgment, quo warranto, a writ of prohibition and general equitable relief.

[90]*90The defendant-respondent, Iree W. Pope, as probate judge, on the 14th day of September, 1977, appointed defendant-respondent, Phillip Williams, Coroner of Richmond County, to fill the unexpired term of the former coroner, Jesse C. Redd, who resigned effective September 15, 1977.

The principal issue raises the question of who has the authority to fill a vacancy when one occurs in a county office in Richmond County.

Respondents contend that the Probate Judge of Richmond County, Georgia has this authority by virtue of the general law of this state, specifically Code Ann. §§ 21-101, 21-102, 23-1102 (a) (b).

The complainants contend that the Board of Commissioners of Roads & Revenues of Richmond County has this authority by virtue of a special Act of the General Assembly of Georgia, Ga. L. 1907, p. 324, as amended.

The trial court ruled in favor of complainants, removed Williams from office, and declared the attempted appointment by the probate judge void and without authority of law. Respondent Williams appeals to this court from that judgment, and although there may be some imperfection in his appeal, we think the case should be decided on its merits. We affirm.

Appellant contends the trial court erred in that the general law of this state under authority contained in Code Ann. § 23-1102 (b), as amended by Ga. L. 1969, p. 350, gives the probate judge of each county the authority to fill vacancies in the office of coroner. He urges that Art. I, Sec. II, Par. VII (Code Ann. § 2-207) of the Constitution of Georgia, 1976, controls, which Code section provides: "Laws of a general nature shall have uniform operation throughout the State, and no special laws shall be enacted in any case for which provision has been made by an existing general law. . .” Thus, the special law creating the Board of Commissioners of Richmond County, Georgia, and delegating to them the specific power and authority to fill vacancies in Richmond County offices is a special Act in conflict with the general law on that subject, and, therefore, must yield to the above cited constitutional provision.

[91]*91The 1877 Georgia Constitution, Art. XI, Sec. Ill, Par. I provided: "County officers to be uniform. — Whatever tribunal, or officers, may hereafter be created by the General Assembly for the transaction of county matters, shall be uniform throughout the State, and the same name, jurisdiction and remedies, except that the General Assembly may provide for the appointment of commissioners of roads and revenues in any county.” That Constitution was later amended to provide in Art. VI, Sec. VI, Par. II, "Powers. The courts of ordinary shall have such powers, in relation to roads, bridges, ferries, public buildings, paupers, county officers, county funds, county taxes, and other county matters as may be conferred on them by law.” Also, Art. VI, Sec. XIX, Par. I provides, "Power to create county commissioners. The General Assembly shall have power to provide for the creation of county commissioners in such counties as may require them, and to define their duties.” (Emphasis supplied.)

On this authority four Acts of the legislature were adopted which are pertinent to the decision in this case. Ga. L. 1880-1. p. 574, created the city court in the County of Richmond providing in part: "The judge of said city court shall be ex officio commissioner of roads and revenues for the County of Richmond, and as such shall discharge all of the duties formerly devolved upon the justices of the inferior court as to county business.” Ga. L. 1882-3, p. 528, reaffirmed the judge of the city court in the County of Richmond ex officio commissioner of roads and revenues for the county saying that the previous Act was of doubtful validity. Among other things, it granted to the judge of that court the following specific authority: "In supplying by appointment, all vacancies in county offices and in ordering elections to fill them.”

Ga. Laws 1907, p. 324, created a Board of Commissioners of Roads & Revenues for the County of Richmond and defined their powers and duties as follows: "§ 3. Be it enacted, that the said Board of Commissioners shall exercise all of the powers relative to county matters that were vested in the judge of the city court as ex officio commissioner of roads and revenues under and by virtue of an act 'to constitute the judge of the city court in the [92]*92County of Richmond ex officio commissioner of roads and revenues for Richmond County; to define his powers and duties and for other purposes.” Ga. L. 1964, p. 2809 empowered the county commissioners the right to call special elections to fill vacancies.

Our State Constitution of 1976, Art. I, Sec. II, Par. VII (Code Ann. § 2-207) provides, similarly: "General laws; uniform operation; how varied. Laws of a general nature shall have uniform operation throughout the State, and no special law shall be enacted in any case for which provision has been made by an existing general law. . .”

Article IX, Sec. I, Par. VI (Code Ann. § 2-5806) of the 1976 Constitution, also provides: "County government uniform; exceptions. Whatever tribunal, or officers, may be created by the General Assembly for the transaction of county matters, shall be uniform throughout the State, and of the same name, jurisdiction, and remedies, except that the General Assembly may provide for County Commissioners in any county, . . .” (Emphasis supplied.) Art. IX, Sec. I, Par. VII (Code Ann. § 2-5807) of the 1976 Constitution, provides: "Power to create county commissioners. The General Assembly shall have power to provide for the creation of county commissioners in such counties as may require them, and to define their duties.” (Emphasis supplied.)

Code Ann. § 21-101, provides that coroners are elected, commissioned, and qualified in the same manner as clerks of the superior courts. Code Ann. § 21-102 provides that the probate court shall appoint coroners on the same terms and in the same manner as they appoint county surveyors. Code Ann. § 23-1102 provides for the election of county surveyors, and the filling of vacancies by the probate judge (formerly the ordinary). These last three referred-to Code sections are laws of general application throughout the state.

Thus we have a special or local law authorizing the Commissioners of Roads & Revenues of Richmond County, Georgia, to fill the vacancies in the office of coroner in that county, which is in conflict with the method of appointment by general law prevailing throughout most of the state. The General Assembly has [93]*93the power to pass separate and distinct laws creating county commissioners; and provisions of general laws enacted by the legislature do not apply to such officers, unless made so by the special laws creating them. Rhodes v. Jernigan, 155 Ga. 523 (117 SE 432) (1923); Bowen v. Lewis, 201 Ga. 487 (40 SE2d 80) (1946).

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

Related

Robert v. Steed
60 S.E.2d 134 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1950)
Bowen v. Lewis
40 S.E.2d 80 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1946)
Moore v. Whaley
7 S.E.2d 394 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1940)
County of Pulaski v. Thompson & Co.
9 S.E. 1065 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1889)
Smith v. Duggan
112 S.E. 458 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1922)
Rhodes v. Jernigan
117 S.E. 432 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1923)
Bradford v. Hammond
175 S.E. 18 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1934)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
243 S.E.2d 55, 241 Ga. 89, 1978 Ga. LEXIS 880, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-richmond-county-ga-1978.