Ayeridge vs. The Town Commissioners of Social Circle

Supreme Court of Georgia1878-01

60 Ga. 404

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court reversed the judgment and held that the town commissioners lacked power to assess the tax because the 1872 incorporation statute, on which the town relied, violated the constitutional requirement that legislation address only one subject matter.

The Town Commissioners of Social Circle levied a property tax on Ayeridge's real and personal property. Ayeridge challenged the tax through an affidavit of illegality, which was overruled, and appealed by writ of error after the superior court dismissed his certiorari petition. The town relied on an 1872 general incorporation statute that granted broader taxing powers than Ayeridge's town's original 1869 charter, which limited taxation to real estate only at one-third the state tax rate.

The court found the 1872 act unconstitutional because its title announced only a new manner of incorporating future towns, yet the legislation contained a second subject matter by also amending the charters of previously established towns. A later amendment in 1874 attempted to correct the title but actually confirmed that the act contained multiple subject matters in violation of the state constitution's single-subject requirement. Because the 1872 act was unconstitutional, the town lacked authority to tax personal property or to exceed the limits set in the original charter.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether a general incorporation act could amend specific town charters without express reference in its title
Application of the single-subject rule to legislation affecting multiple existing municipal charters
Validity of a legislative amendment that expanded a statute's title to address its true scope

Procedural posture

After the superior court dismissed Ayeridge's certiorari petition and sustained the tax, the case reached the appellate court by writ of error.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

majority opinion

Jackson, Judge.

The town authorities of Social Circle levied a tax upon the real and personal estate of Ayeridge within the town.

Ayeridge filed an affidavit of illegality on the levy of the fi.fa.\ it was overruled, and the case went to the superior court by certiorari. That court dismissed the certiorari, and the case was brought here by writ of error. The question is, did the town authorities have the power to assess the tax %

By the charter of Social Circle — acts of 1869, page 92,-the commissioners may levy a property tax on real estate alone — and, by that charter, they are not empowered to tax any other property, and real estate only to the extent of one-third of the state tax on that property.

In 1872, an act was passed “ to prescribe the manner of incorporating towns and villages in this state,” which enacts that that act is confined to towns and villages hereafter established, “ except that the council of a town or village heretofore established, may exercise all the powers conferred by this act, although the same may not be conferred by their charter, and as far as this ant confers powers on a town or village not conferred by the charter of such town or village, the same shall be deemed an amendment to said charter.”

It is contended that as this act gives power to tax realty and personalty both, and as the commissioners followed this act, the tax is legal. We think not. The title of the act has reference only to the “ manner of incorporating towns and villages.” In such an act, under such a title, no legislator would expect to find an amendment to all charters already existing, and the act is repugnant to the constitution which requires the title to indicate the outline of the legis lation enacted. See acts of 1872, p.16 ; constitution, Code, §5056. This matter is different from what the title expresses, and in so far as it amends the charter, it is unconstitutional.

But it is said that the act of 1874 saves it from being repugnant to the constitution.

That act — see acts of 1874, p.46 — is entitled “ an act to amend the caption of an act entitled ‘ an act to prescribe the manner of incorporating towns and villages in this state, and to re-enact said act; ’ ” and the act of 1874 goes on to amend the act of 1872 by adding to its caption these words, “and to authorize towns and villages heretofore incorporated to exercise all the powers conferred by this act.”

Perhaps this amendment does make the title express the subjects matter of the act, and thus frees it from the objection to it on that point; but it then makes it all the more plain that the act of 1872 contains two subjects matter, to-wit, one to provide the manner in future of incorporating towns and villages, and the other to confer additional powers upon, or make amendments to, the charters of all towns and villages theretofore incorporated. The same provision or section of the constitution of 1868, declares that an act shall not refer to more than one subject matter. Code, §5056.

This refers to two directly, and to a multitude indirectly, inasmuch as it amends all prior charters, and brings this case within the principle ruled in 49 Ga., 232 ; 50 Ga., 374*

The judgment dismissing the certiorari and sustaining the tax must therefore be reversed, and the superior court will give such direction to the case as will enforce this decision.

Judgment reversed.