Case ID: ga_128/html/0430-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Beck, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Mangham et al. v. Mallory et al.
    
    Submitted April 24,
    Decided May 18, 1907,
    'Petition for incorporation of town. Before Judge Reagan. Up-son superior court. June 26, 1906.
    Mallory and others filed their petition to the superior court of Upson county for the incorporation of the town of Crest, as prowided in the Political Code, §685 et seq. The petition alleges, that 'they are “qualified voters and male inhabitants of the town of Crestthat they have “given due notice of time of holding election in said town of Crest on the question of incorporation, and also of “their intention to apply for the issuing of a certificate chartering .said town,” in the manner required by law, and that on June 2, 1906, the election so advertised was held and resulted in twenty “votes “for incorporation,” and none against it; and that the same was duly certified by the managers of the election. Mangham and others filed a caveat to the petition, on the ground that not more “than fifteen male persons of legal age resided within the limits of the town; and that several of the petitioners were not qualified voters of the town. The petitioners demurred to the caveat, on the .grounds, among others, that “the court has no jurisdiction to hear and determine the question made by said caveat, there being no law providing for or authorizing any defense or objections to be made,” ■and that the caveat sets up no legal reason why the charter should not be granted. At the hearing of the petition, the court dismissed the caveat, and passed an order directing the clerk of the superior court to issue a certificate of incorporation for the town of Crest. The caveators excepted. The defendants in error moved to dismiss the writ of error, on the ground that “there is no law authorizing a writ of error from the judgment in this case.”
   Beck, J.

There is no provision in the law which authorizes any one to appear and object to the granting of the order directing the clerk of the superior court to issue the certificate of incorporation as px’ovided in the Political Code,'§687, which provides for the granting of an order by the superior court directing the clei'k of said court to issue a cei'tifi■eate of incorporation of a town or village; nor is there any provision for the review by this court, by writ of error or otlxei’wise, of the action of that court in gx-anting the order. This being so, the motion to dismiss the writ of error in this ease must prevail.

Writ of error dismissed.

All the Justices concur.

M. H. Sandwich, and Tisinger & Davis, for plaintiffs in error.

Claude Worrill and J. 7. Allen, contra.