Case Name: DENBY v. BROWN et al.
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Decision Date: 1973-06-26
Citations: 230 Ga. 813
Docket Number: 27804
Parties: DENBY v. BROWN et al.
Judges: All the Justices concur, except Hawes and Gunter, JJ, who dissent.
Reporter: Georgia Reports
Volume: 230
Pages: 813–817

Head Matter:
27804.
DENBY v. BROWN et al.

Opinion:
Per curiam.
Appellant brought an action below against the City of Tifton and certain of its officials seeking to require the city to permit him to connect his own sanitary sewer line running from his proposed apartment buildings, to be constructed on land located just outside the corporate limits of the city, to the city's sanitary sewer disposal system.
The complaint alleged that the city permitted other residences and businesses located outside the corporate limits of the city to connect with and use the city's disposal system; that the city had legal authority under its charter (Ga. L. 1939, p. 1362) to construct sewage disposal plants and sewage disposal lines outside of the corporate limits of the city to provide such service; and that the city had in fact constructed two such disposal plants and sanitary sewage lines connecting thereto outside of the corporate limits.
The complaint further alleged that the city had denied appellant the right to connect to and use the sewage disposal system, and that such denial was, under the circumstances, a violation of due process of law and equal protection of the law under specified provisions of the Georgia Constitution and the Constitution of the United States.
The appellees filed responsive pleadings and among them was a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. After a hearing the trial court granted this motion and entered judgment dismissing the appellant's complaint. The appeal here is from that judgment.
Argued March 12, 1973
Decided June 26, 1973 —
Rehearing denied July 12, 1973.
Section 4 of the 1939 Act, p. 1362, authorizing the Tiflón Sewerage and Water Works System provides: "Be it further enacted that the City is authorized, through its proper officers to contract with persons, firms and corporations, both within and without the city limits for the furnishing by the city service for the disposal of sewage and industrial waste as well as of its water supply, and such contracts may fix the amounts to be charged by the city for such services." Under Section 4 the City of Tiflón is authorized but not required to furnish sewage service to persons outside the city limits. Whether to serve such persons is discretionary and not subject to mandamus, no gross abuse of discretion being shown.
Section 2 of the 1939 Act merely authorizes the city to construct, maintain and operate a sewage disposal plant outside the incorporated limits of said city which "plant may be sufficient to meet the needs of the inhabitants of said city and any reasonable future need and also to meet the need for persons, firms or corporations outside of said city within a reasonable distance thereof." This section is concerned with the construction and. operation of any sewage plant which may be located outside the city limits and does not control whom the city may serve. The provisions of Section 4 of the Act quoted above control contract service. City of Moultrie v. Burgess, 212 Ga. 22 (90 SE2d 1).
The judgment of the trial court dismissing the complaint was correct.
Judgment affirmed.
All the Justices concur, except Hawes and Gunter, JJ, who dissent.
Kelley & Allen, Roy Benton Allen, for appellant.
Seymour S. Owens, for appellees.