*1 (9 E. 2d Folsom, 190 Ga. Smith it was said 147 Ga. Estill, In Estill litigate interplead and defendants to requires that, when the then dispute, each defendant rights to fund respective and others, plaintiff as position occupies the and distinctly, and as far clearly, plainly, claim state his of others. with the claims can, issue as he take plaintiff in error the trial by the appearance being no There intervention, of its support it in evidence offered and no prosecution. for want of properly dismissed claim was on the cross- main bill reversed affirmed concur. exceptions. bill of 18995. WEBB v. ECHOLS et al.
Argued July 1955. June 1955 Decided Wallace, plaintiff Wallace, S. B. Albert in error. Kemp, Edwin S. contra. The General Justice. in 1943 all
Almand, (Ga. relating Clayton County former acts L. by separate p. a sole Commissioner election, for his Revenues, duties, Roads p. B. powers. Ga. L. Under that 1955, serving February, as sole Commissioner of February, 1955, Assembly passed Revenues. 2064) amended, act of 1943 as created a three-member Commis- for their Revenues, of Roads and sioners terms duties. act divided the office, into *2 districts, with one member to the of voters county large from each district. It was the members from the second third districts should be elected at special than election to be held not less 15 nor more than 30 days (B. approval after the the district) serving Haynie, of the first as sole Commis- resident third sioner “shall the member the board and shall serve be of three-man until the end as chairman of board of the his expires 31, of office, 1956,” term which December and receive the compensation receiving prior acts, as was under for the special the remainder of his term. E. P. Echols At Tarp George were elected as commissioners for second third and were such districts installed as officers. Carey Thereafter, taxpayer H. Webb, a citizen and as Clayton County, residing district, petition in the first filed his quo the writ of George, seeking warranto Echols and them membership oust board, ground from on the 1955, positions, these was unconstitutional (a) void, because the act abolished the officeof C.B. Haynie, contrary 3, par. sec. 7, to art. 15 of the Constitution (Code (b) said act 2-1915); because is unconstitutional, § void, discriminatory in that denies it District No. become and be candidates elected as members of board of A commissioners. alleging petition, substance the fore- going facts, sustained, was to the order of pe- dismissal the exceptions titioner filed bill assigning to this error on judgment. 17, par. 6, (Code Art. sec. Constitution of 1945 2-5201) provides: Assembly “The power General shall have § county provide creation such counties may require them, and to define their duties.” Art. sec. (Code 2-7806) provides: “Whatever par. tribunal, officers, § may Assembly be created for the transaction throughout be uniform matters, shall . . State may provide for Commissioners
except that the General par. any county.” Art. sec. Roads and Revenues (Code has 2-1915) “No office which a provides: § nor term of the officeshortened or elected shall be during the bill term such lengthened local or approved by people unless question.” jurisdiction a referendum the affected void, entire contended under which held officeas sole since missioner, abolished his term his officewas being “approved affected last-quoted 1955 violated the referendum,” in a and said act of of the Constitution. diligently look interpretations, “In all the court shall view, Assembly, keeping times, at all of the General intention (9). remedy.” 102-102 law, Code evil, the old pre- “It is well settled that *3 give legislative preserve effect ferred which wall intent and act, adopted that a rather than will Corp., v. Fulton necessarily destroy it.” Mathis Industrial 168 35). (149 apparent purpose 721 E. legislature passing of 1955 to create a act Board Revenues of County, of Commissioners of commissioner; instead of a sole that consist three members continue as a serve, incumbent sole commissioner was to interruption, from District No. without missioner was to chairman three-member board for of the term, and that two new members should remainder 2 at a from Districts election. abrogate, annihilate, destroy, abolish means ex an office
To Law tinguish, put Diet.; an end to it. Black’s Pondelick v. (168 v. 146); 111N. J. Atl. Alexander County, Passaic (Tex. Civ.), opinion 614. We Lampasas 275 S. W. are of the (6) (46 Sayer Brown, case, by an 1900 the question. legis In that controls act of Douglas County, created a Board lature passed members. 1903 an act consist five consisting 1900 as the commission provision of the act of consisting of mem- and created a commission members, five the five-member board provided that bers. terms, until the end of current after which to serve
continue
consist of three members.
It was contended-
the board would
repealed
the act of 1903
effect
section
there
upon
pas-
for five
commissioners,
five
went out
office.
sage of the
of 1903 the
commissioners
reply to the contention was that
said that a sufficient
This court
abrogation
simultaneous,
are
that whatever
substitution
upon
were conferred
the board
upon
board as then
conferred
constituted. The
last
were
“No conceivable
case further said:
interval of
repeal
substitution;
elapsed
hence
time
between
single instant,
never, for
ceased to
board of commissioners
expressly
held that where one
exist.
statute
It has
often
existing
statute
and,
is
at the
declares that
time,
provisions,
portion
or declares
re-enacts
of another
repealed
portion thereof,
and re-enacts such
the re-
repeal,
so far as the old law is continued
enactment neutralizes
operates
interruption
old law
where
force.' The
repeal.”
as the
P.
re-enactment takes effect
time
repeal
on the rule that the
For other authorities
simultaneous
substantially
provisions
re-enactment of
the same
repealing the
be construed as
former
but
act are
same,
Life
see American Standard
Ins.
continuation
Co.
226 Ala.
168);
So.
McAdam v.
Mut.
State,
Federal
Liability
Co.,
It petition. except Duckworth, concur, affirmed. Hawkins, JJ., who dissent. J.,C. Head and dissenting. I dissent from the Justice, Hawkins, opinion, first and from majority division 'the by affirmance, judgment reason the office of one man Commissioner of County and Revenues for Revenues, consisting Roads and Commissioners of created in its stead. While the three Commissioners was formerly acting provides as sole Commissioner of the new Board should become one of the members balance the term for the Commissioners Commissioner, and should receive the same com- sole pensation, not alter that the office Com- this does the fact of sole abolished, and a new Board three Commissioners missioner was (Code 2-1915) provides created in stead. The Constitution its which a has been elected shall be abol- that “No officeto ished . term which such was elected approved unless the same be question,”
affected in a referendum on the and no referendum as to the abolition of this officewas act of 1955. relied The case of applicable case, to the majority, is not changing there the new act the five-member Board to three members terms continued and expiration did abolish the five-member board until the their current term. say
I am authorized that Mr. Chief Justice Duckworth and Mr. Justice Head concur in this dissent. AUTHORITY CITY
18940. HOUSING OF OF CARROLLTON v. AYERS et al.