48 S.E.2d 517 | Ga. | 1948
The petition of the Solicitor of the City Court of Floyd County against the clerk of that court and others, seeking an accounting, injunctive relief, and a declaratory judgment directing the manner in which certain funds arising from fines and forfeitures should be distributed, failed to set forth a cause of action against the defendants, and the trial court did not err in sustaining general demurrers thereto.
The petitioner prayed: that process issue; that the defendants, Jolly, clerk, and Horton, sheriff, be required to file an itemized statement of all fees or costs received by them during the petitioner's term of office and from whom received, the amounts they are entitled to be paid, or the amount which they are indebted on account of fees or costs collected by them, and that, upon the trial of the cause, the court enter an order in accordance with the finding of fact based upon such statement; that, upon the determination of the amounts, if any, held by Jolly and Horton, received by them from fines and forfeitures, the petitioner have judgment in terms of the law; that an auditor be appointed to determine fully and completely and report thereon, with power to employ an accountant to assist in making up the accounts of the various parties; that the petitioner be authorized to pay to the county treasurer the $11,707.10 now on deposit to the order of the petitioner and the judge of the city court, to be disbursed by the county treasurer under the order of the superior court, and that the treasurer be both temporarily and permanently enjoined from paying out the same otherwise; that the court by declaratory judgment decree the duties of the respective parties named with respect to the making of returns for their own portion of the fines and forfeitures, to be paid under the provisions of the Code, § 27-2902, or whether a general insolvent list is to be prepared by the petitioner and filed for them, it being the claim of the petitioner that each officer must prepare and present his own *825 claim for approval by the court before the petitioner is permitted to pay such officer any sum; that the court by declaratory judgment determine the validity of the insolvent-costs list held by C. H. Porter, Lamar Camp, T. E. Edwards, and J. F. Jolly; that the court adjudicate whether or not the City Court of Floyd County is governed by the laws applicable to solicitors-general of the superior court as to the distribution of funds, fines and forfeitures, and insolvent costs; and that the court grant such other relief as may be necessary to determine finally all matters of accounting between the petitioner and the defendants.
The exception is to orders sustaining separate demurrers filed by the defendants, Jolly, Horton, Walden, and Porter, and dismissing the petition as amended. Section 18 of the act approved September 27, 1883, (Ga. L. 1882-83 p. 535), creating the City Court of Floyd County declares: "That all moneys arising from fines and forfeitures . . shall be subject to the claims of the officers of said court, . . and shall be applied to the payment thereof under the laws and regulations governing the same in the superior courts of this State." Under the above act as amended (Ga. L. 1920, p. 329) the Solicitor of the City Court of Floyd County is on a fee basis, and under the express provisions of the original act he is governed by the laws applicable to solicitors-general of the superior courts as to the distribution of moneys arising from fines and forfeitures.
It is the duty of solicitors-general "to collect all moneys arising from fines and forfeited recognizances, all costs on criminal cases when paid into court before judgment, and not otherwise; and at the fall term of each court, every year, to settle with the county treasurer, and pay over to him all moneys due him according to law, after a fair and full settlement." Code, § 24-2908 (7). However, § 27-2902 allows the solicitor-general, out of the money collected from fines and forfeitures, to pay himself all the legal fees due him and the other officers of the court the fees due them, *826 and to the justices of the peace and constables the costs due them in the particular cases by which the funds were brought into court, before he is required to pay anything into the county treasury. The Code, § 27-2903, declares that: "All moneys arising from such fines and forfeitures shall be, at each term of the court, distributed by the solicitor, under order of the court, to such persons and according to the priorities now prescribed by law; and on his failure to do so, he shall be subject to a rule at the instance of any party aggrieved."
The case under review involves a dispute between the Solicitor of the City Court of Floyd County, and other officers and former officers of that court, in reference to an insolvent-costs fund. The solicitor states in his petition that he has on deposit in a named bank a stated sum of money collected from fines and forfeitures; and prays that he be authorized to pay the money over to the county treasurer, to be disbursed by the county treasurer, under the order of the superior court, and that the treasurer be enjoined from paying out the same otherwise. The solicitor does not allege that any of the money should be used in paying his own fees, or those of the other officers of court or of the justices of the peace or constables in the particular cases by which the funds were brought into court.
"Where the solicitor-general has a surplus in his hands he can not be ruled by a former solicitor, not his immediate predecessor, and required to pay the surplus to the latter. Such surplus must be paid to the county treasurer, and the remedy of the former solicitor, if he has orders on the insolvent fund, is to collect his claims out of the county treasurer when the latter has funds available for this purpose." Bartlett v. Brunson,
While, as indicated above, it was the duty of the solicitor in the present case to collect all moneys arising from fines and forfeitures, yet since he states in his petition that he has a surplus which he desires to pay over to the county treasurer, he cannot complain because the clerk and the sheriff paid over to the county treasurer stated amounts which should have been turned over to *827
the solicitor and by him paid to the county treasurer. This is true for the reason that equity will not require a person to do a useless act. The ruling here made is in accord with the decision in Wilson v. Harris,
The allegation that the judge of the city court, ex parte and without legal proceedings, caused an order to be issued against the solicitor for the payment of certain sums, the correctness of said sums being disputed by the solicitor, is not an averment that the judgment complained of, which was not set forth in the petition or attached as an exhibit thereto, was absolutely void. Under the recent decision of this court in Walden v. Smith,
Applying the above principles, the petition failed to state a cause of action against the defendants, and the trial court did not err in sustaining general demurrers thereto.
Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur, except Bell andWyatt, JJ., absent on account of illness.