12 S.E.2d 883 | Ga. | 1941
On application of constitutional and statutory law, held, that it was error to dismiss, on demurrer, an application to validate municipal bonds.
2. Even though the Court of Appeals held the original petition subject to general demurrer of the intervening taxpayers and citizens, for the reason that the town was without charter authority to issue the waterworks bonds, the filing of the amendments to the petition, by express leave of the Court of Appeals in its decision reversing the judgment of the trial court overruling the general demurrer (Town of McIntyre v. Baldwin,
3. Neither such procedure nor the act itself constituted a violation of art. 1, sec. 3, par. 2, of the State constitution, against retroactive laws (Code, § 2-302); or of art. 1, sec. 1, par. 4, against depriving a person of the right to defend his own cause in any court of the State (§ 2-104), on the ground that the act and its effect would take away from the intervenors the right to continue their defense as it existed when the original petition was filed. Bullard v. Holman,
4. Since cities and towns in their governmental powers are creatures of the legislature, and such powers are subject to change from time to time at the will of their creator (Hogg v.Rome,
5. The validating act, being made by its terms generally applicable throughout the State to all cities, towns, counties, school districts, and public bodies created by the General Assembly, and coming within the situations stated, was neither class legislation in violation of art. 1, sec. 1, par. 2, providing that protection of person and property shall be the paramount duty of government and shall be impartial and complete (Code, § 2-102); nor special legislation in violation of art. 1, sec. 4, par. 1, providing for uniform operation of general laws, and prohibiting the enactment of a special law in any case for which provision has been made by an existing general law (§ 2-401). Williamson v. Housing Authority of Augusta,
6. The validating act does not contravene art. 3, sec. 7, par. 17, of the State constitution, prohibiting amendment or repeal of any *476
law or Code section "by mere reference to its title or to the number of the section of the Code" (§ 2-1817), since the act does not purport to expressly amend or repeal any particular law or Code section, and since, as repeatedly held, the constitutional inhibition is confined to express repeals and amendments, and does not extend to changes made by implication.Barber v. Housing Authority of Rome, supra, and cit.; Crisp
v. Head,
7. There is no merit in the ground that the validating act deprives the courts of the right to enforce State constitutional provisions and laws by making evidence as to actions of town officials conclusive, and that the act thus attempts to consolidate the judicial and legislative departments, in violation of art. 1, sec. 1, par. 23 (Code, § 2-123), separating the legislative, judicial, and executive powers. Validating legislation of this character, unless in clear contravention of some particular constitutional provision, has been uniformly held proper and effective. See Hogg v. Rome, supra; Bass v.Columbus,
8. Art. 7, sec. 7, par. 1, of the State constitution (Code, § 2-5501) prohibits municipal corporations and counties from incurring debts in excess of seven per cent. of the assessed value of all taxable property, with exceptions as stated. The following par. 2 (Code, § 2-5502) requires that before political divisions incur bonded indebtedness, they "shall, at or before the time of so doing, provide for the assessment and collection of an annual tax sufficient in amount to pay the principal and interest of said debt within 30 years from the date of the incurring of said indebtedness." But "it is not necessary that the provision for payment [under par. 2] should be made before the application to validate. If on the hearing of such an application nothing appears to the contrary, the presumption is that provision will be made at the time and in the manner prescribed by the constitution. If, however, it does distinctly appear that the municipal corporation does not intend to make such provision, a judgment of validation should not be entered."Epping v. Columbus,
Judgment reversed. All the Justices concur.