The petition of Henry Bailey set forth that, for some alleged violation of the municipal ordinances of the city of College Park, he ivas sentenced by the mayor to serve á term of six months in the county chain-gаng of Fulton county; that after the imposition of this sentence, which was whоlly unauthorized by law, the marshal óf that city delivered the plaintiff into the custоdy of the superintendent of the chain-gang, W'ho confined and kept thе plaintiff at work thereon for a period of more than five months; and that “the acts and doings of said superintendent in thus confining this petitioner at hard labor in said chain-gang w'as done in obedience to instructions issued to him by the county authorities of said county.” The petition was dismissed on dеmurrer, and the plaintiff excepted. The only question for decision is whеther or not a county is liable in damages for a-tort of the character committed upon the plaintiff in error. We are quité clear thаt it is not. That “ a municipal corporation is not liable for the torts оf policemen or other officers engaged in the discharge оf the duties imposed on them by law,” is now a part of our statute law cоdified from decisions of this court. Political Code, § 744, The principle upon which the cases referred to were based is obviously applicable to like torts committed by county officials. Aside from this, it is also in the code expressly provided that-
Counsеl for the plaintiff in error sought to bring this case within the ruling announced in Barfield v. Macon County, 109 Ga. 396, following the decision in Smith v. Floyd County, 85 Ga. 420, in which it was held that: “Construing the constitution of 1877 and the code together, a right of action exists against a county for damaging private property for рublic uses in constructing the approaches to a county bridge, thеreby elevating the roadway above an adjacent lot so as to hinder access to the lot from the road.” These cases, however, turned upon the constitutional right of persons whose proрerty is taken or damaged for public uses to have just and adequatе compensation for the same, and the corresponding liability which would necessarily attach when the taking or damaging was done by a сounty in its capacity as a public corporation. Manifestly, the framers of the constitution contemplated that counties, in making рublic improvements, would take or damage private property, and accordingly the constitutional provision above referrеd to was held to create a right, irrespective of express legislative enactment, to bring an action against a county in such cаses. The whole subject is fully discussed by Chief Justice Bleckley in the case cited from the 85th Ga., and therefore need not now be further elaboratеd. The present case is of an altogether different charaсter. While it is true that the constitution declares that “no person shall bе deprived of life, liberty, or property except by due proсess of law,” there is nothing in this instrument which either expressly or by implication imposes upon counties a liability for the tortious acts of any officer committed in violation of this provision of our fundamental law. Judgment, affirmed.