Court Opinion

ID: 9608863
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 03:18:51.654665+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:15:08.121562
License: Public Domain

Nichols, Judge,
dissenting.  I dissent from the decision of the majority in the first and seventh divisions of the opinion, as well as from the judgment of reversal on the main bill of exceptions.
*863The first division of the majority opinion holds that the airport was constructed and operated not as a governmental function but as a proprietary undertaking. In the brief of counsel for the county the contention is made that the lease was void because it had the effect, if valid, of restricting the free exercise of legislative and governmental functions by future governing bodies of DeKalb County. The lease, as amended, was made for a period of 15 years from an uncertain date in the future. Code § 69-202, dealing with municipalities, forbids ordinances that bind future governing bodies. In the case of Horkan v. City of Moultrie, 136 Ga. 561 (71 S. E. 785), the Supreme Court, in dealing with a contract which would have bound a future council, said: “If this could not be done by an ordinance, of course it could not be done by a contract.” In the case of Aven v. Steiner Cancer Hospital, Inc., 189 Ga. 126, 140 (5 S. E. 2d 356), the Supreme Court held: “This rule is not of statutory origin, and is not peculiar to Georgia. It is a codification of a principle stated in Williams v. West Point, 68 Ga. 816, which is applicable generally to legislative or governmental bodies.” In the case of Smith v. Ouzts, 214 Ga. 144 (103 S. E. 2d 567), this same rule was applied to a county board of education, and while most cases dealing with the subject of governmental functions are tort cases involving municipalities, since no action can be brought against a county without express legislative authority (Code § 23-1502), there is no doubt that such rule of law is just as applicable to counties as it is to cities, or other legislative or governing bodies. Accordingly, since a contract that extends beyond the term of office of a governing body can be made as to proprietary or miniserial functions (see Lawson v. City of Moultrie, 194 Ga. 699, 22 S. E. 2d 592), if the lease was made in a proprietary undertaking by the county it was not void as restricting the free exercise of legislative functions by future governing bodies of DeKalb County, while on the other hand if the lease was made, and the airport established not as a profit-making enterprise, but, as a governmental function, then the lease was void.
The decision of this court in Caroway v. City of Atlanta, 85 Ga. App. 792, 796 (70 S. E. 2d 126), held that where “a city *864maintains an airport passenger terminal under Code § 11-201 and for a substantial profit, as a private ministerial and proprietary undertaking, and in competition with private business leases its facilities out while at the same time retaining the responsibility for maintenance of a portion of these facilities, it too, in order to escape liability, must keep the premises in its charge in a safe condition for the passengers of its lessees.” In Mayor &c. of Savannah v. Lyons, 54 Ga. App. 661 (189 S. E. 63), it was held that, in the absence of allegations that the airport was operated as a profit making enterprise, such operation, even when the airport was leased, was a governmental function. Under the allegations of the plaintiff’s petition in the present case the airport was not constructed or operated for profit. Indeed, the undisputed allegations show that the airport was not constructed for profit-making purposes. The plaintiff alleged, as a part of its petition, certain allegations of the resolution and pleadings dealing with the issuance and validation of the bonds issued in connection with the construction of the airport by the county. These allegations show that the airport was constructed from funds obtained from revenue anticipation certificates, that the income from the airport could be used solely for the purpose of paying the bondholders and for necessary upkeep, etc., of the airport, and such income could not be diverted to any other purpose. Certainly under such circumstances it could not be said that the airport was constructed or leased in the proprietary capacity of the county. The terms of the lease are alleged and it does not disclose that there was any intention between the parties that such lease was made by the county in its proprietary capacity. The Supreme Court, in considering the terms of the lease when the case was before that court on the writ of certiorari, said: “In our opinion a mere consideration of the terms of the lease, as outlined above, discloses that the intent of the parties was that Southern Airways simply contracted with the county to manage and operate the county’s airport, as its agent, for public and governmental purposes, as outlined under Code § 11-202.” The county was not required to construct or maintain an airport any more than the City of Atlanta would be required to care for the poor. See *865Aven v. Steiner Cancer Hospital, Inc., 189 Ga. 126, 140, supra, where it was said: “The charter of the city provides that ‘The mayor and general council shall have full power and authority to pass all by-laws and ordinances respecting . . . care of the poor.’ . . . It is not a command.” Since under the allegations of the petition, including the exhibits attached thereto, the airport was not constructed or operated by the county in its proprietary capacity, and since the lease was not made by the county in its proprietary capacity, the lease in question, seeking to bind future governing bodies of the county, not only to operate an airport, but to permit the lessee to operate the airport, was void and the trial court did not err in so holding in its judgment granting the county’s motion for a summary judgment.
In division 7 the majority opinion properly recognizes that the agreement in the contract whereby the county agreed to furnish Southern Airways Company with water and sewage facilities without charge is void, but the holding that this consideration is severable from the remainder of the contract so that only this part of the contract would be void is untenable.