Court Opinion

ID: 9848782
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 04:27:05.941692+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:45.449661
License: Public Domain

Townsend and Nichols, JJ.,
dissenting. 1. We dissent from the majority opinion, for the reason that we think the first three counts of the petition set out a cause of action against the Mayor of Thomson individually as against general demurrer. We disagree with the opinion, insofar as the first three counts are concerned, in that it appears to rely upon City of Thomson v. Davis ante, p. 216, as authority for the proposition that no cause of action is stated against Johnson, Mayor, as an individual. City of Thomson v. Davis was an action against a city in the exercise of a governmental function which was sought to be predicated upon á taking of private property for public purposes. It therefore bears no relation to the present case (except to some extent insofar as count 4 of this petition is concerned) in that the defendant is different, the act alleged to constitute the tort is different, certain factual allegations of the petition are different, and the liability imposed by law upon the named defendant is also different.
We also disagree with the first sentence of the opinion to the effect that the only basis of liability alleged against the defendant Johnson is that he notified the plaintiff that the permit issued was void. This petition shows far more than mere notification. Taking it, together with the charter provisions of which this court takes judicial notice, it must be taken to allege that the municipal government of the city is vested in a mayor and four councilmen; that the mayor does not vote on legislative matters except in case of tie; that he exercises the power of veto; that he is the chief executive officer and shall see that all laws and ordinances are faithfully executed; that he has general jurisdiction of the affairs of the city and all police officers come under his jurisdiction; that he has power to punish for contempt and to preserve the peace and also has certain judicial powers; that the mayor and council have power to issue building permits and also to grant and revoke licenses; that the mayor (apparently without any action on the part of the city council) in his official capacity “signed a permit which granted to plaintiff the right to erect a building for the purpose of equipping and operating *866therein an abattoir”; that the building was erected in reliance upon this permit, and that, after it was completed but before operation thereof commenced, the defendant, again in his official capacity, notified the plaintiff that the permit was void, that he could not operate the abattoir, that the defendant would prevent and prohibit him from operating the same and from exercising any of the rights conferred by the permit which he had signed and issued.
Under this statement of fact, this court need not decide whether or not the allegations are sufficient to show that the permit was in fact a void permit. If it was void, and the defendant maliciously or oppressively or without authority of law allowed the plaintiff to presume it was valid until he had spent a considerable amount of money and had reached the point of commencing operations to realize an income from his investment, and then informed him he could not proceed thereunder, he had violated the plaintiff’s rights and the plaintiff was injured. If, on the other hand, the permit was valid, and the defendant allowed the plaintiff to obtain it and proceed to make a large investment under its authority and then (the plaintiff having done no act which created a nuisance or in any way changed the situation except by spending money as authorized under the permit) the defendant undertook, as an executive officer in charge of the city police force, to prevent him from exercising his rights thereunder by maliciously or oppressively or without authority of law telling him, as such executive officer, that he would prevent him from exercising his rights thereunder, then also the plaintiff’s rights had been violated and he was damaged thereby. It was not necessary for the plaintiff to do any overt act which would cause his arrest, it being obvious that to disregard the prohibition would only lead to further difficulties. City of Atlanta v. Dooly, 74 Ga. 702.
The allegations of the petition are sufficient as against general demurrer, construing them most strongly against the pleader, to authorize the inference that the mayor would use the police force at his command in order to prevent the operation of the abattoir, the petition alleging that “defendant in his official capacity as mayor notified plaintiff that he could not operate said abattoir” and that he in such capacity would “prevent plaintiff *867from operating said abattoir.” The plaintiff had a right to assume that any attempt on his part to operate the abattoir subsequent to such notice would bring about this result. Under the allegations of the petition taken in connection with the provisions of the city charter it is obvious that some of these acts, at least, were done without authority of law. Without regard, therefore, to the question of whether malice or oppression alone would sustain a cause of action for acts done within legal authority, it is obvious that counts 1 and 2 set out a cause of'action for acts done maliciously or oppressively and without legal authority. Count 3 alleges the conduct of the mayor complained of to be without legal authority but does not allege that it was malicious or oppressive. Code § 69-208 provides: “Members of the council and other officers of a municipal corporation shall be personally liable to one who sustains special damages as the result of any official act of such officers, if done oppressively, maliciously, corruptly, or without authority of law.” Counts 1 and 2 are sufficient to show the conduct of the mayor to be without legal authority without a specific allegation to that effect, and count 3, wherein it is specifically alleged that the conduct of the mayor was without authority of law, is sufficient to show that it was oppressive. Accordingly, these 3 counts set out a cause of action for special damages under the authority of Pruden v. Love, 67 Ga. 190, from which case the Code section upon which this action is based was taken. Whether or not the correct measure of damages has been set out is not taken before the court, this case being here on the sustaining of the general demurrer only. Horwitz v. Teague, 77 Ga. App. 386, 389 (48 S. E. 2d 697). We are of the opinion, however, that the sustainable special damages would be those resulting from the delay suffered by the plaintiff in putting his business into operation, together with punitive damages if such were sustainable under the evidence, and not the full value of the premises or the cost of construction.
2. Count 4 predicates damages upon the taking or damaging of private property for public use without just compensation, and the deprivation of property without due process of law. It was held in City of Thomson v. Davis, supra, that there was no “taking” where the title of the property remained in the plaintiff and only the use thereof was impaired. The same situation *868would apply to the allegations of the petition here, and would, of itself, suffice to show that this count sets out no cause of action without dealing with the powers of the defendant, in any event, to condemn property, a function of government which does not belong to private citizens such as the mayor of a city who is sued individually for torts committed in his official capacity. A private citizen who took the property of another would be liable for a trespass or conversion; a municipal corporation, on the other hand, may, by following legal means and paying just and adequate compensation, do so as one of the sovereign powers delegated to it. We therefore agree that no cause of action is set out in count 4 of the petition.