Young v. City of Waycross

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Young v. City of Waycross

76 S.E. 648, 11 Ga. App. 846, 1912 Ga. App. LEXIS 221

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedDecember 10, 1912

Docket4501

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 76 S.E. 648 (Young v. City of Waycross) 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

Young v. City of Waycross, 76 S.E. 648, 11 Ga. App. 846, 1912 Ga. App. LEXIS 221 (Ga. Ct. App. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

Pottle, J.

The ordinance of the City of Waycross, passed on July 27, 1900, prohibiting the keeping for illegal sale of intoxicating liquors within the corporate limits of the city, is valid, without reference to whether the act of the General Assembly, approved August 17, 1909 (Acts 1909, p. 1456), creating a new charter for the City of Waycross, is unconstitutional for any of the reasons alleged in the petition for certiorari. If that act is constitutional, the ordinance is valid, under the terms of the act. If the act is unconstitutional, the ordinance is still valid, under the charter in force prior to the act of 1909. It follows from this that it is unnecessary to certify to the Supreme Court the constitutional question sought to be raised in the petition for certiorari; and, this being the only question involved in the record, the court did not err in refusing to sanction the petition.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Pottle, J.

The ordinance of the City of Waycross, passed on July 27, 1900, prohibiting the keeping for illegal sale of intoxicating liquors within the corporate limits of the city, is valid, without reference to whether the act of the General Assembly, approved August 17, 1909 (Acts 1909, p. 1456), creating a new charter for the City of Waycross, is unconstitutional for any of the reasons alleged in the petition for certiorari. If that act is constitutional, the ordinance is valid, under the terms of the act. If the act is unconstitutional, the ordinance is still valid, under the charter in force prior to the act of 1909. It follows from this that it is unnecessary to certify to the Supreme Court the constitutional question sought to be raised in the petition for certiorari; and, this being the only question involved in the record, the court did not err in refusing to sanction the petition.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

76 S.E. 648, 11 Ga. App. 846, 1912 Ga. App. LEXIS 221, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/young-v-city-of-waycross-gactapp-1912.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack