Court Opinion

ID: 9604389
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 02:21:03.535933+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:03:27.792900
License: Public Domain

Head, Justice,
dissenting. The vice of the decision of the majority in the present case is based upon a limitation which is wholly unauthorized by the law. The majority seize upon the word “city” where it twice appears in Code § 69-101, and the reference to “city” authorities in § 69-102, to the exclusion of other provisions of the law, which leave no doubt as to the intent and purpose of the General Assembly in its enactment. In § 69-101 the word “municipal,” or “municipality,” is used five times in connection with the word “city” which appears twice. In § 69-102 the word “municipal,” or “municipality,” appears seventeen times, and § 69-102 clearly relates to the repeal of any municipal charter.
Under general definitions the word “municipality” refers to a *152city, town, borough, incorporated village, or other district having the powers of self-government. Webster’s International Dictionary (2d ed.), p. 1611; Black’s Law Dictionary (3rd ed.), p. 1215; Bouvier’s Law Dictionary (3rd rev.), vol. 2, p. 2269. Our law defines municipal corporations: “A public corporation is one having for its object the administration of a portion of the powers of government, delegated to it for that purpose— such are municipal corporations.” Code § 22-103. A municipal corporation, under our law, includes both cities and towns.
Considering §§ 69-101 and 69-102 together, there would appear to be no doubt but that the General Assembly intended the act to apply to all municipal corporations having less than 50,000 inhabitants. If there should be any room for doubt after a consideration of these sections together, it must be dissipated in its entirety by §§ 69-103 and 69-104. “This law shall in no event have reference to amendments to existing municipal charters except such as seek a material change in the municipal form of government or the substitution of municipal officers other than those holding existing offices.” § 69-103. “No provision of this law shall be construed as preventing the municipal officers of any municipality from abolishing any office which may have been created by such municipal officers, nor from preventing the creation of new officers to perform the duties of such abolished office.” § 69-104. These sections are limited in their application to “municipal charters,” “municipal form of government,” “municipal officers,” and “municipality,” all of which have application to any city or town incorporated by the General Assembly.
This court has twice considered the proper construction to be given to §§ 69-101, 69-102, 69-103, and 69-104. In Hoover v. Brown, 186 Ga. 519, 523 (198 S. E. 231), cited in the majority opinion, Mr. Justice Bell stated for a unanimous court: “This section [69-101] embodies a general law by which the charters of municipalities within a specified class are so fixed that no repeal, and no amendment having either of the objects stated therein, shall become effective without submission to the qualified voters.” This ruling applied §§ 69-101, 69-102, 69-103, and 69-104 to all municipalities. In Savannah Beach, Tybee Island v. Bergman, 202 Ga. 670 (44 S. E. 2d 245), this court applied *153these sections to the Town of Savannah Beach, Tybee Island.
It is pointed out in the majority opinion that the General Assembly is presumed to know of the decisions of this court. This, of course, is the rule. The General Assembly, however, is a law-making body and is not called upon to make fine technical distinctions and applications of the law; and it is not, therefore, required to apply to a proposed act rules of law unrelated to the subject matter of the act. Decisions of this court wholly unrelated to the present subject matter, and pertaining to city courts, their creation and location, can not by any proper application defeat the clear and unambiguous intent of the law as contained in §§ 69-101, 69-102, 69-103, and 69-104.
With further reference to the knowledge of the General Assembly of the decisions of this court, and presumptively with this knowledge, the General Assembly construed its own act (§ 69-101, et seq.) by an act approved February 16, 1938 (Ga. L. 1937-38, Ex. Sess., p. 272), wherein by amendment the General Assembly provided: “Nothing in this section shall apply to towns or municipalities or cities having a population of not more than 2,285 and not less than 2,280 according to the United States Census of 1930, and all future census, and also cities of a population of not less than thirty-six hundred (3600) and not more than thirty-eight hundred (3800) according to the United States Census of 1930 or any future census.” The General Assembly thus construed § 69-101, et seq., to include towns, municipalities, and cities, and this is true although this court in Hoover v. Brown, 186 Ga. 519, supra, held the classification based on population to be unconstitutional and void.
Since the above Code sections apply alike to all municipalities, whether a town or a city, having a population of less than 50,000, and have been so construed by decisions of this court and by the General Assembly, I must dissent from the majority opinion.