*1 nothing general authority is There conferred city a set § law forth Ann. 69-314 Code respect acquisition or construction aof water system, any powers municipality may addition a already whereby city compel city have, can use of system. city water, And, or connection to a water while purport § as set forth in Ann. Code 69-911 does any against prohibition municipality to eliminate requiring "from of the residents the new annexed area to city dealing use owned utilities” we are not here city may proper authority of annexation. under territory applicable only annex under conditions newly territory. Toney Mayor annexed See &c. of Macon, compelling supporting
In our reasons position respect City of Valdosta in (Hutchinson supra) Valdosta, sewer are connections respect absent to the ordinances here involved. Accordingly, City Midway we hold that had no authority requiring to enact of Water Code city system payment connection to the water aof charge, authority minimum and no to enact prohibiting 13, 1972, ordinance March without qualification any repairs, improvements alterations, or privately pumps, wells, owned water and water systems city supplied necessarily water available. It city follows that the failed state claim which granted, can relief be trial did not err dismissing complaint. All the Justices concur. affirmed.
27559. GLOVER v. SINK. appeal curiam. here Per corpus proceeding court entered in a habeas child of the minor paternal complaint plaintiffs the child. The previous award of on a County, Maryland, Montgomery Circuit Court proceeding. awarded a divorce *2 period year "temporarily... of one from for a the child until further thereafter date of decree and parents plaintiff this court” to the order of wit, Sink, therein, and Linda to Arthur K. Sink O. rights together visitation to reasonable appears mother had It that the mother. pursuant Glynn County, of her of visitation refused to return
exercise the same to the who regain proceeding custody. to defended ground entry that since of the decree there on change had been such a in conditions the welfare by awarding would of the child custody best be served child to her. trial court ruled that temporary the subject decree was a mere order not change to modification on account conditions and refused hear evidence as to change in conditions. Held: Pretermitting any question Arthur K. as to whether Sink necessary party plaintiff proceeding,
is a no evidence as to introduced and presumption is, therefore, it the Georgia is the same as (138 Ferster, 220
law. Ferster v.
Ga.
322
674).
attempt by
state,
SE2d
In this
an
the trial court
question
to retain
over
prevent
child,
its
is ineffectual to
a decree
becoming
final. Such an order is a final
adjudication
as to
based
they
it
facts as
existed at
the time
was entered.
857).
(82
Barrentine,
Barrentine v.
83
given
effect
the courts of this
mandate of the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.
duty
Constitution,
is,
it
nevertheless,
S.
of the trial
presented
it,
when the issues are
change
whether
there has been a
in conditions
subsequent
entry
previous
decree which
adversely
affects the
welfare of
and to
present
determine,
based on the
conditions as shown
whether the best interests of the child
custody.
dictate a
Gatlin,
Milner v.
(76
860);
(1)
109
SE
Woodland,
Woodland v.
Argued January 14,1972 22, 1973. November Decided appellant. Lee, J. for
Thomas corpus dissenting. case Justice, habeas This GUNTER, custody possession of a minor and a contest involves ap- and the the child between pellee-paternal child. of the previously Custody awarded to the been of the child had Maryland appellee court. the decree of a appellant, provided and after for visitation Glynn County, appellant in the child with the a visit possession appellant Georgia, of the to return the refused appellee. appellee habeas this the The child to corpus possession and of the child below to recover copy court’s decree the certified relied on a appellant awarding contended that to her. the of conditions since rendition there been a had corpus decree, that the habeas the court’s and that hear evidence court should corpus then court should award habeas appellant. child in decree
After court introduction of on the to hear evidence the trial declined of that in since the rendition issue of a conditions decree, he and appellee. has come to child to corpus contending had court that
jurisdiction condition,”and that error for the court not to hear it was rule on that issue. evidence and judgment. I court has reversed disagree majority, respectfully I dissent. corpus
I concede that the habeas to determine the issue of detention alleged illegally to be detained because Glynn County, Georgia. However, after evidence Glynn County, detained in showed that the child was of another in violation of a court decree point required court at habeas to that decree. accord full faith credit confers cases Our law detention court circuit my § 50-103. But to mind such exists. Code limited. When a habeas case purloined has been admits that applicant that the child is withheld from or of a applicant, another court *4 jurisdiction to does not have "change in which must determine the issue of condition” come about rendition of the decree. have since the respondent short, action In in a habeas should not be able to steal child or withhold child in of a valid a court and thereby confer in the forum of the respondent’s choice in litigate order to in condition” issue. See my dissenting Smith, opinion in Smith v. expounded
The rule pursued by permits a habeas corpus his act, or his act violation of a decree of another to confer court to the detriment of legally who is entitled to the possession and custody of the child. If custody is to be litigated again on condition then it must be relitigated in the forum of the applicant entitled by a former court decree custody, forum is different from the forum detention has place. taken
I am opinion that our Code 50-121 is applicable only where there is no existing court decree awarding the child and where it is shown that presence of the child within the jurisdiction of the habeas corpus court was not caused stealing child or retaining the child within that in violation of another court decree.
I am of in this case that the Maryland decree was entitled to full faith Georgia and credit in the court and that the judgment below was correct.
I respectfully dissent. I am authorized to state that joins Justice Jordan this dissent.
27535. FREEMAN et al. v. THE STATE. Freeman, Jr., Justice. R. V. Albert Alvin Twiggs Durr, Lee Jimmy having been convicted of the offense of murder and of the offense of robbery,