I. “Thе General Assembly shall have power to provide for the creation of county commissioners in such counties as may require them, and to define their duties.” Constitution, art, 6, sec. 19, par. 1 (Civil Code of 1910, § 6548),
3. The office of county commissioner being of statutory origin, it is not within the uniformity requirement of the constitution as quoted above (see Malone v. Minchew, 170 Ga. 687,
4. In view of the railing in thе preceding headnote, and there being no general law prescribing the qualifications of commissioners of roads and revenues, it was within the power of the General Assembly to provide for an election of the successor to the commissioner named by the act, by the grand jury of Murray County, and to prescribe his qualifications, that he should be thirty years of age, a freeholder, and well versed in matters of finance, etc.
5. The contention that the act creating a single commissioner in Murray County, sub judice, is in violation of articles 14 and 19 of the amendments to the constitutiоn of the United States, and of article 1, section 4, paragraph 1, and article 3, section 7, рaragraph 8, of the constitution of Georgia, is without merit.
6. The act now under consideration (Gа. L. 1929, p. 678) does not violate art. 3, sec. 7, par. 8, of the constitution of Georgia (Civil Code of 1910, § 6437), which inhibits passage of any law referring to more than one subject-matter or containing matter differеnt from what is expressed in the title. The appointment of a clerk by the commissioner, and other provisions to which exception is taken, are germane to the sole and entire purpose of the act, the caption of which concludes with the words “and for other purposes.” “Different opinions may prevail elsewhere as to the value of these words as desсriptive terms in the title of an act of the General Assembly; they have in this State
7. The power to levy taxes and pay legal demands, as provided in the Civil Code of 1910, § 513, is vested in the office of county commissioner оr boards of county commissioners of roads and revenues; and there is no merit in the contentiоn that the act in question is an unconstitutional delegation of that power.
8. The attack upоn section 8 of the act, which prohibits the commissioner from contracting obligations of the county in excess of $10,000 in any one year, is altogether irrelevant in a proceeding in the nature of quo warranto.
9. Under section 10 of the act creating a single commissioner for Murray County, it is dеclared that should any part of the act be declared unconstitutional it should not affeсt the remainder of -the act. Therefore the trial judge could not, in this case, have held that the incumbent was not entitled to retain his office. Wilson v. Augusta, 165 Ga. 520 (
10. The court did not err in sustaining the motion to strike the petition and in dismissing the proceeding in the nature of quo warranto.
Judgment affirmed.
