Frаnk D. Moore and others, alleging themselves to be residents, citizens, and taxpayers of Baldwin County, brought an action for injunction against Baldwin County, its Commissioners of Roads and Revenues, and the Clerk of the Commissioners. The petition was in three counts. The defendants filed demurrers, general and special, to the petition as a whole and to each count. The court sustained the general demurrers to the pеtition as a whole and to each count thereof as amended, and dismissed the petition. The plaintiffs excepted. Query: 1. Under the statutory law of Georgia as it now stands, and under the Constitution of 1945, does а county of the State of Georgia have a legal right to expend county funds for the erection of a public works or convict camp? 2. If a county has such right, are the allegations of count 2 оf the petition sufficient to authorize a jury to find that the County Commissioners of Baldwin County abused their discretion in proposing to erect and maintain a public works or convict camp at the place de *543 scribed in the petition? And 3. Even if the County Commissioners of Baldwin County have the legal right to expend county funds for the erection of a public works or convict camp, and even if they have not abused their discretion in building and locating a camp at the place described in the petition, would not a jury be authorized to find, upon proof of the allegations of count 3 of the petition, that the erеction and maintenance of a public works or convict camp at the place selected by the commissioners would be a nuisance? We shall consider and dispose of these questiоns in the order of their statement.
Our penal system evolves from many statutes. It would be burdensome and, as we perceive, an unnecessary task to presently recount their many provisions. However, as they relate to the question here involved, it may be safely asserted that, prior to the Constitution of 1945, and prior to the creation of the State Board of Corrections in 1946, each county of this State wаs clothed with ample authority to use its misdemeanor convicts and those assigned to it, in the construction of its public roads and for other authorized county purposes. Incident to this right, was the power and the duty of the county to make, at its expense, proper provision for their support, care, and safekeeping, including, of course, necessary convict camps or housing facilities. Bеginning with little, but with an ever-increasing concern, the State has at all times by statutory authority exercised some control and supervision over the keep, care, and welfare of county-employed convicts. See, in this connection, Titles 77 and 95 of the Code of 1933;
Pennington
v.
Gammon,
67
Ga.
456;
Garrison
v.
Perkins,
137
Ga.
744 (
But it is here contended that the several counties of this State, since the State Board of Corrections was created in 1946, do not have a legal right to a quota of convicts from the State for county uses, and a right to erect and maintain, at county expense, a public works or convict camp. It is argued that a county’s right to such was impliedly repealed by thе act of 1946. To this we do not agree. Repeals by implication are not favoréd by law, and a subsequent statute repeals prior legislative acts by implication only when they are clearly and indubitably contradictory, when they are in irreconcilable conflict with each other, and when they cannot reasonably stand together.
Montgomery
v.
Board of Education of Richmond County,
74
Ga.
41;
State Board of Education
v.
County Board of Education of Richmond County,
190
Ga.
588 (2) (
These headnotes do not require elaboration.
Since neither the petition as a whole nor any count thereof stated a cause of action for the relief sought, it was properly dismissed on general demurrer. Accordingly, the record shows no error.
Judgment affirmed.