148 Ga. 526 | Ga. | 1918
The question for decision in this case is whether the act of 1912 (Acts 1912, p. 472), creating a board of commissioners of roads and revenues in and for the County of Toombs, conferred upon that board jurisdiction over county matters and county finances, so as to authorize it to contract for the building of a county court-house. " The act (sec. 5) declares that "said commissioners shall have exclusive jurisdiction and control over the county affairs as provided for in the Toombs County road laws,
These provisions of the act clearly indicate the purpose to confer upon the board jurisdiction over county matters and county finances other than those confined to the roads and bridges of the county, and to confer upon it the arithority to contract for the building of a-county court-house, and to “pledge the county credit” for the erection thereof.
The Civil Code, § 399, declares that “The county buildings are to be erected and kept in order and repaired at the .expense of the county, under the direction of the ordinary, who is authorized to make all necessary contracts for that purpose.” And-the language of section 387 is, “Whenever it becomes necessary to build or repair any court-house, jail, bridge, causeway, or other public works in any county in this State, the officer having charge of the roads and revenues and public buildings of such county shall cause the same to be built or repaired by letting out the contract therefor to the lowest bidder, at public outcry, before the court-house door, after having advertised the letting of said contracts as hereinafter provided,” etc. The jurisdiction formerly exercised by the ordinary, referred to in these code sections, is the jurisdiction which the act of 1912 evidently intended to confer upon the board of commissioners of roads and revenues of Toombs County when in conferring jurisdiction upon it the following language was used: “to exercise such other powers as are granted by law, or may be indispensable to their jurisdiction over county matters or county finances.”
The court did not err in refusing to -grant an interlocutory injunction restraining the board of commissioners from entering into a contract in behalf of the county for the rebuilding of a county court-house, to be paid for out of the insurance collected for the former court-house, which had been destroyed by fire, supplemented, if necessary, with other funds legally available for that purpose. Judgment affirmed.