*1 AMERICAN LIABILITY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY еt al. MOORE denying Justice. The appellant’s Grice, to intervene in a action appealed tort to this court on the theоry application of the Constitution of the United States involved in that the trial court failed to consider the Full Faith of that Credit Clаuse Constitution as to certain Maryland pleaded appellant. However, law of Appeals, Supreme juris- Court and nоt the has Court, diction questions involving mere constitu- provisions. tional Paving Company City Atlanta, Gulf (1) (99 374); Carswell Cannon, no other for this being And basis сourt’s jurisdiction, appeal to the Appeals. Court All Justices
Transferred Argued February 1969 Decided Claud F. Arnall, Brackett, Jr., for Hugh Head, Jr., McGhee, Glover Sivift, Currie, McGhee Hiers,
25002. ADDIS et al. v. SMITH et al. complaint Justice. 1. The in this case merely seeks grant of a mandamus сompel some of the defendants Mayor who are the and members of the council of the of East Point to re-zone described tract of located in land city from commercial multi-family residential so as to authorize the erection therеon of apartment houses, and to compel the other defendant, Addis, building who is the in- spector plaintiffs of East Point to issue to the purpose enabling them to erect apartment houses on property. While the does contain allegatiоns to the effect that under the facts circumstances as set forth therein, plication city plaintiffs’ ordinance of the рroperty is unconstitutional reasons, and void for stated grant seeks, neither nor did the court relief declar
ing such be unconstitutional or void. The judgment appealed granting from is one plain tiffs a mandamus absolute, and defendants, Mayor East Point “to rezоne plaintiffs’ petition described in the from ‘C-l’ *2 to ‘R-3,’ defendant, Addis, and the “to B. W. for issue forthwith the construction of apartment petition units on in the land described in the zoning accordance of with ‘R-3’ ordinance the Georgia.” rendering judgment such a the In superior рower authority. the court and It is exceeded his property fundamental power the to zone or re-zone by upon “gоverning conferred the Constitution the authori ties” of municipalities, the various and that in matters zoning judgment discretion on the exerсise and the body upon power is involved. whom the is conferred judgment judgment court can No substitute its for the mayor principles аnd council in such matters. These supported by following County are v. cases: Richmond Steed, (103 Ragsdale, v. 253); Thomas 150 232 229, (3 238, McCollum, 567); 188 Ga. SE2d Hunt 214 Ga. 239 (108 Griffith, 275); 809, SE2d Vulcan Materials Co. (114 215 Ga. SE2d To sustain the of the trial court in this case Man- rely principally upon Tuggle case case ning, 703). Nothing in thаt requires ruling here make. different from that which we merely that ruled in case was What was proved upon set forth facts if which, jury would authorize a to find County arbitrary DeKalb plaintiff’s property, unreasonable as affected the upon finding would be and that such a void, therefore zoning regulation plaintiffs’ prop- applicable no at all require by man- erty, and it appropriate would then be building permit. building inspector issue a damus that case. clearly distinguishable from this is, therefore, That case Judgment All the Justices reversed. Argued- January 6,1969. denied March Archer, Jr., R. Sidener, James William Archer, Patrick & appellants. for Hamner, Floyd Long, Siefferman, E.
Long Siefferman, A. Calhoun Jr., for appellеes. Rehearing. for Motion
On rehearing coun- vigorous In a sel for this court overlooked their insist principal municipal ordinаnce contention that the existence of a any proven. was not property question in use This did not overlook this cоntention Hoivever, appellees making counsel for in this contention evidently overlook the fact that both judge they recognized that the trial of the case before the city for question had in fact been zoned and that under that the erection commercial use permitted. relief apartment units on the is not sought respect mayor and council was that with upоn the trial counsel for the “rezoned,” *3 to pellees court, willing to am for Your Honor stated “I they properly consider contend was not map,” which now proved. to map up The which was sent with the record Clerk, Kidd, City court contains a certificate that City Georgia’ it zoning map Point, is “the ‘official of the of East referred to Section the Code Ordinances 24-52 City map adоpted by City which was city May 2, of said on as a of ‘the Point, Georgia.’ of East section of the Code East Point referred to the cer- Ordinances appellees’ tificate is the same section to in referred quoted appellees therein. The admitted existence of the ordinance in their and their contention with re- spect to the ordinance must be reduced to contention ordinance, adopted by city, while is void. It unnecessary thus to whether decide the certificate attaсhed to map proof map was sufficient was the official zoning map of East Point. said,
As we have ask that the order that prefix be “rezoned.” The “re-” means “again, again.” Dictionary World anew, over Webster’s New Ed.). prefix Language, p. When Americаn again to or to zone word zone it means zone applied again or zoned anew unless cannot zoned anew, be of the admissions of the it has been zoned. In view once open court, in their required find, if not that the clearly find, authorized to “rеzoned” been zoned. His order that shows had question that did so find. He could not order re- without he opinion, we cited in the under the аuthorities which did not find void as since he ordianance bring purview appellees’ property so as to the case within thе not authorized in the case he was face prohibiting apartments the erection of to mandamus the build- ing inspector рermit apartments. for the erection of to issue a
Rehearing denied. All the Justices concur. PREFERRED INSURANCE COMPANY Commissioner, et al. BENTLEY, Argued Januаry March denied Gilbert Bentley, Bentley, Thomas 8. Vandiver, Barwick & Stoddard, Meredith, B. Edward J. *4 n & Henry Poole, Irvin, Hatcher, M. Meyerson,
Hatcher, Oxford McClatchey, Devereaux Cooper, 'Cooper, Pearce Barksdale, III, A. R. Hicks, Jr., M. W. R. Robertson, Claud Castellani, Robert J. company rulings made in an insurance Two
Grice, overruling is thе comprise appeal. One receivership report, final and the other ancillary receiver’s objections to an