167 Ga. 57 | Ga. | 1928
Lead Opinion
This is not a contested-election case, but is a quo warranto proceeding to contest the eligibility of the incumbent after his election and induction into office. The incumbent being in office and completely eligible to hold the office at the time of the decision of the court, it would seem to be useless and unreasonable to oust him, and thereby defeat the wishes of the people as expressed at the polls, purely on the ground that he was ineligible to hold the office at the time he was elected. This does not conflict with the decision of this court in the case of Crovatt v. Mason, 101 Ga. 246 (28 S. E. 891). The language of the statute involved in that case was such as to render the person holding the office ineligible during an entire period of time, which included the time at which the case was tried. When the decision was rendered by the trial court the person was still ineligible. That is not the case here. At the time of the trial, the law having been changed, the person whose right to the office was the subject of inquiry was eligible to election, and was eligible to hold the office, and being so, the law will not turn him out of office merely because he was ineligible when he was elected and received his commission.
Other headnotes require no elaboration.
Judgment affirmed.
Dissenting Opinion
dissenting. The ruling is in the teeth of the statute. We stand by the statute. Besides, this view is supported by authorities. Crovatt v. Mason, 101 Ga. 246 (supra); Parker v. Smith, 3 Minn. 240 (74 Am. D. 749); 22 R. C. L. 402, § 43.