12 S.E.2d 310 | Ga. | 1940
1. A court of equity will not interfere with the discretionary action of the State Highway Department in locating, grading, and improving a proposed State-aid highway, within the sphere of their legally designated powers, unless such action is arbitrary and amounts to an abuse of discretion. Dyer v. Martin,
2. Under the evidence in the record the judge was authorized to find that there was no such arbitrary action or abuse of discretion on the part of the administrative officials; and hence his refusal to grant an injunction will not be reversed. That the order of refusal, referring to the authority to decide the routes of highways, added that "This is within the exclusive power and discretion of the State Highway Board, who are denied, however, the privilege of acting with gross abuse of discretion," affords no reason for taking this case out of the general rule above stated.
Judgment affirmed. All the Justicesconcur.
Miller, Patten, and Watson, in their official capacities as members of the State Highway Board, filed their general and special demurrers to the petition, and, subject to such demurrers, filed their plea and answer to the petition. Hunt, Wisenbaker, and Barfield, as commissioners of roads and revenues, filed their plea and answer, and the Town of Hahira intervened as a party.
At the hearing the judge presiding announced that he would not pass on the demurrers, but would take the same into consideration in granting or refusing an injunction. The evidence on the issues formed by the pleadings was conflicting. In affidavits introduced by the defendants the affiants, some of whom were citizens of Hahira, and others engineers with the State Highway Department, expressed their opinion that the traffic hazard to the public at large, including school children, would not be greater with the highway located as proposed than it would be if located along the *132 routes suggested by the petitioners. At the conclusion of the hearing the judge passed an order as follows: "Upon consideration it is held that courts have no authority to decide the routes of the highways in Georgia. This is within the exclusive power and discretion of the State Highway Board, who are denied, however, the privilege of acting with gross abuse of discretion. Following the mandate of the law and considering the evidence in the cause and the law, I find it necessary to deny the injunction as prayed." To this order the petitioners excepted.