Case Name: BAHNSEN, veterinarian, v. BUIE et al., commissioners
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Decision Date: 1923-02-10
Citations: 155 Ga. 13
Docket Number: No. 3287
Parties: BAHNSEN, veterinarian, v. BUIE et al., commissioners.
Judges: All the Justices concur, except Bussell, O. J., dissenting, and Atkinson, J., disqualified.
Reporter: Georgia Reports
Volume: 155
Pages: 13–20

Head Matter:
BAHNSEN, veterinarian, v. BUIE et al., commissioners.
1. A former judgment in mandamus proceedings between the same parties is not conclusive in this case, either as res adjudieata or as estoppel, where the same lias not been pleaded nor submitted in evidence.
(a) Though the record in the former case was ordered by the court, upon application of the defendants in error, to be sent up as additional record, it can not be considered as such, as it -was not a part of the record in this case in the court below.
2. The petition for mandamus in this ease contains distinct and sufficient allegations showing the failure upon the part of the commissioners of roads and revenues of the county in question to comply with the requirements of section 2 of the act approved August 17, 1918 (Acts 1918, p. 256) ; and the judge erred in refusing; upon eon- • sideration of the petition presented to him, to Issue a mandamus nisi.
No. 3287.
February 10, 1923.
Petition for mandamus. Before Judge Highsmith. Camden superior court. June 6, 1922.
On June 3, 1922, P. F. Bahnsen, veterinarian of the State of Georgia, presented to the judge of the superior court of the Brunswick Circuit, which embraces the County of Camden, his petition for a mandamus nisi against J. C. Buie.and others, commissioners of roads and revenues for said county, alleging that these commissioners are in charge of county affairs and are charged with the duty of constructing such number of dipping-vats as may be fixed by the State veterinarian, and of providing proper chemicals and other materials necessary in the work of tick eradication, appointing inspectors, etc., and taking other measures to complete the work of tick eradication; but that they have failed, refused, and neglected to perform the duties imposed upon them by statute; that Camden County is tick-infested territory, and the cattle therein are and have been infected with the cattle-fever tick, margaroups annulatus, and have been exposed to the infection since January 1, 1921. It is shown that on March 11, 1922, the State veterinarian presented his petition as such to the superior court, setting up the failure of the defendants to perform their duty as required by the act of the General Assembly, entitled “ An act for the eradication of the1 cattle tick,” etc., approved August If, 1918 (Acts 1918, p. 256); that the defendants filed their answer thereto, admitting their failure to put the act of the General. Assembly into effect, but alleging their readiness to comply with the tick-eradication law, setting up, however, that they had no funds with which to carry on the work, that the county was in debt in the sum of $11,344, and that they were contracting with the State Highway Department to pay one half of a $30,000 expense about to be incurred for roads. The court, having .taken that case under 0021-sideration, passed, on April 13, 1922, an order denying a mandamus absolute, and expressing his faith in the answer of the commissioners. The order refusing the mandamus was passed “ without prejudice to the rights of the relators to renew the action, should proper cause appear therefor.” Petitioner averred that after the filing of the answer by the commissioners, they, on the first Monday in April, 1922, expended the sum of $3,488, and on the first Tuesday in May they expended the sum of $8,726; and that none of these expenditures were made for the purpose of tick eradication. Petitioner prayed that a mandamus nisi issue, directed to the defendants, requiring them to show cause why a mandamus absolute should not' be granted, requiring them to construct such number of dipping-vats as should be fixed by the State veterinarian or his authority, and take such other necessary steps to complete the work of tick eradication.
The judge took the petition under consideration, and on June 6, 1922 passed an order refusing to issue a mandamus nisi. In his order he referred to the former petition presented by the State veterinarian, and called attention to the fact that it is not alleged that the veterinarian had designated the number of vats to be constructed, and that there was no sufficient allegation of a demand upon the commissioners to perform the duties sought to be required, and that the petitioner does not disclose the number of vats nor the material required. The court recited also the answer of the commissioners filed in the former case, and the fact that upon the hearing he had refused the mandamus absolute. The court also expressed his confidence in the good faith of the commissioners, who avowed their purpose to proceed with the work of tick eradication; and his opinion that their proposal to levy a tax for this purpose for this year is reasonable and proper, and all' that should be required. The order refusing the mandamus nisi further saj^s: “Within less than 60 days from the rendition of such order and judgment, and after presentation of bill of exceptions thereto, and before the expiration of the time within which provision may be made for raising necessary funds, relator presents the present petition on the same state of facts, with no new matter set up other than the commissioners have expended certain sums for certain stated purposes. May the court take cognizance of what has just transpired before the court between "the same parties with respect to the same subject-matter; or is the court required to again issue a rule nisi immediately upon the conclusion of the hearing of the first, and require the parties to again answer with respect to a matter as to which hearing has just been had ? ”
S. C. Townsend, for plaintiff.
Cowart & Vocelle, for defendants.

Opinion:
Beck, P. J.
(After stating the facts.)
We are of the opinion that the court erred in refusing a mandamus nisi. It is true that a mandamus absolute had been refused some two months before, upon similar petition and answer filed. That petition and answer and the judgment of the court are attached to this record, having been sent up as a part of the record on a petition filed therefor by the defendants in error. Manifestly it can not be considered a part of the record; it was not introduced .in evidence, and is not a part of the pleadings. Inasmuch as this former petition and answer thereto had never been made a part of the record in the present proceedings, the defendants in error could not avail themselves of the provisions contained in section 6149, par. 1, of the Civil Code, which relates to the subject of procuring additional record by the defendant in error, "who desires more of the evidence, or other parts of the record, or all of the evidence, or all of the record sent up." The references to the record in the former case in the petition in this' case and in the judge's order do not authorize this court to hold that there had been a former adjudication, or that that was an estoppel by judgment which would prevent the petitioner from maintaining the present proceedings. And inasmuch as we can not consider copies of the former petition, answer and judgment, there is nothing in the record to show that there has been an adjudication adverse to petitioner upon the issues here involved, or that he is estopped by the judgment in the former case, even though he fails to allege facts showing such a change in the circumstances as would authorize him to maintain a second petition for mandamus. To render the former petition for mandamus, the answer, and the judgment of the court effective as a former adjudication or estoppel conclusive against the petitioner in the present case, it should have been pleaded, or at least introduced in evidence.
We are now brought to the consideration of the question as to whether the application for mandamus was sufficient to require the issuance of a mandamus nisi, in answer to which the respondents would have been required to show cause. Section 2 of the act approved August 17, 1918, which is an act to provide for tick eradication throughout the State (Acts 1918,' p. 256), reads as follows: " Sec. 2. Be it further enacted, that on or before the first day of April, 1919, the ordinary, county commissioners, or officers in charge of the county affairs in each and every county where tick eradication has not been completed shall construct such number of dipping-vats as may be fixed by the State veterinarian, or his authority, and provide the proper chemicals and other materials necessary to be used in the systematic work of tick eradication in such counties, which shall begin on said date or such subsequent date as may be fixed by the State veterinarian, with the approval of the commissioner of agriculture. If the ordinary, county commissioners, or officials in charge of county affairs of any county shall fail, refusé, or neglect to comply with the provisions of this act, on or before the first day of April, 1919, the State veterinarian shall apply to any court of competent jurisdiction for writ of mandamus, or shall institute other legal proceedings as may be necessary and proper to compel such official to comply with the provisions of this act." The petition in this case by its allegations distinctly and clearly shows that the county commissioners had failed to perform the duty imposed upon them under the plain terms of this statute. The petition says, in substance, that such and such duties were required of the commissioners of roads and revenues of the county, under existing circumstances clearly described, and that the defendants failed, refused, and neglected to perform those duties. The statute points out that mandamus is one remedy to compel the performance on the part of the county authorities charged with the duties enumerated in the section quoted. Under these allegations in the petition it is the duty of the court to issue the mandamus nisi. Possibly, upon the filing of special demurrers, the defendants wouJd have been entitled to more specific information as to the number of vats, etc., required; or by plea and answer they might have shown the court that the facts alleged were not true, or that they would be entitled to more time to raise the money with which to carry out the requirements of the law; or that there had been an adjudication upon a similar petition and the answer thereto; and they might set up this as res adjudicata, or as estoppel, in case there had been no such lapse of time or change in the circumstances as would authorize the petitioner to bring this second application for mandamus.
Judgment reversed.
All the Justices concur, except Bussell, O. J., dissenting, and Atkinson, J., disqualified.