*1 Brоoks, pro se. Eddie Hill, Jr., N. General, Harold Attorney
Arthur K. Wilder Stan- General, Courtney Attorney Assistant Executive General, Roger Attorneys Assistant Beasley, ton, Dorothy T. General, Attorney appellee. Moister, Assistant Deputy W. v. AULT. GRANT 27082. here, upon the evidence Justice. Where Presiding
Grice,
finding
authorized
corpus proceeding
the habeas
counsel, and
by competent
was represented
the petitioner
the petitioner
shows
affirmatively
record
and intelli-
voluntarily
rights
of his
advised
fully
remanding
guilty,
entered a plea
gently
Compare
was not error.
custody
respondent
him tо
891);
v.
Purvis
Smith,
Executive General, for Attorneys Beasley, T. Assistant ton, Dorothy appellee. WORKS, v. INC. LAKE WATER
27084. NISKEY al. GARNER et action for brought an appellant Justice. Gunter, against mandamus in the trial court a writ of him to require that would County Inspector enforce the Code Building County of Fulton against Co., Litchfield Construction Inc. Litchfield was engaged in a construction project had formerly been located outside the limits of the City Atlanta within Fulton which had been annexed *2 ordinance of the Atlanta so as to come within city’s corporate that limits. The crux оf appellant’s the complaint was that the attempted was annexation illegal, the land is subject still loсated outside the lim- its of the within city County, Fulton and that the Fulton County official should be required to exercise Fulton County’s jurisdiction subject over land with respect County’s to Fulton Building Code. permitted
Litchfield was a become defendant рarty by intervention, and Litchfield is in fact the real party de- in fendant the case. only
The for by issue determination judgе trial was whether the subject land was legally annexed so as to become a part Atlanta and under its ju- risdictiоn rather than remaining outside the corporate limits and being under jurisdiction County. The trial found judge that there were nо issues determination; of fact for he as a held matter of law the subject land was legally annexed by City of Atlantа so within come the city’s jurisdiction; and he denied for the appellant’s prayer issuance a writ of mandamus. оnly for
The issue determination is whether the trial in judge holding was correct the annexation of the subject land was lеgal.
The appellant judge contends that the trial committed er-
ror, and urges upon us three reasons in support basic this contention.
First, of Atlanta did not use the "60% method”
(Code Ann. §69-904) even though city did, it says since there were no residing electors subject only sinсe there was one owner of the land. consider this argument We to be without merit. fol- that must be procedures rеcord shows
The were followed "60% method” using in lowed in- landowner The one annexation. in this effecting city annexаtion, and since for application signed volved land, the record on the residing no electors there were sign electors to have this, the failure showing sufficiently clearly explained. was application in this landоwner involved one there fact in this annexation electors involved and no method” prescribed the "60% use of did not prohibit statute. providing 1966 Act that the
Second, urges the appellant (Code a being et seq.), Ann. 69-904 the "60% method” § lоcal Act of the law” or Act, "general is not a population in conflict with it therefore Assembly, General 69-1016) (Code which prohib- Ann. Home Rule § "except their boundaries changing from municipalities its such methods Assembly byor the General local act of *3 law.” We hold by general may be provided as a method of provides law” and a "gеneral 1966 Act is 1965 Home contemplated municipal of Nichols v. the case in this connection Rule Act. Seе 306) (1947) (2a) where Pirkle, Ga. 372 202 court, said "laws Jenkins, for this speaking Justice to respect with the state uniformly throughout operating to cities or counties applying subject-matter, of inhabi- number having a certain a common class оper- uniform having more, are statutes general tants or [Citations].” ation. through ground makes the contention
Third, the аppellant 1966 statute to the effect recently plowed delegate "legisla- to in that it attempts unconstitutional change municipal to right including power,” tive A majority boundaries, governments. local adversely to this issue this court decided members of arrived at majority contention, though plaintiff’s case, is- in that routes different their dеstination See decided. plainly was nonetheless sue 867 Plantation Pipe Bremen, Line Co. v. 227 1Ga. 868) (1971). We decline tо overrule the recent decision in Plantation.
Judgment All the concur, Justices except Nichols affirmed. Hawеs, JJ., who dissent. 15,
Argued April March 6, 1972 Decided Long & Seifferman, Floyd Jr., E. Seifferman, appel- lant.
Webb, Parker, & Young Ferguson, Parker, Guy Troutman, Sanders, Lockerman Ashmore, & Carlton, Jr., Milton A. Cook, Robert F. Attorney General, for appellees.
Heard, Leverett & Adams, Adams, L. Jr., amicus Clifford curiae. Justice, dissenting. As recognized by majority
Hawes, opinion, the proper determination this case depends upon whether the area involved was annexed proрerly of Atlanta. The purported was had under the so-called percent 60 method provided apprоved Act (Ga. 10, 1966, 409, 410; L. pp. Code Ann. 69-§ 904). This court dealt constitutionality with the in Plantation Line Pipe Bremen, Co. v. 227 Ga. 868), in which case Justice Nichols and I dis- sented. For the reasons set forth in dissent, I am of opinion annexation here in question was void and that the the trial court should be reversed.
I am authorized to state that Justice Nichols concurs in this dissent. *4 v. THE EVANS STATE. Justicе. Isaiah Evans was convicted in the
Undercofler, Court of Superior Chatham for the offense of armed robbery twenty years sentenced to serve in the penitentiary. He appeals this court. Held: