LAW.coLAW.co

Peed v. McCrary

Supreme Court of Georgia1894-04-16
94 Ga. 487

Summary

Holding. The court affirmed by mandamus absolute that the county treasurer must pay the warrant drawn by the county judge in favor of the plaintiff.

A county treasurer refused to pay a warrant issued by a county judge to reimburse a citizen who had loaned $500 to the county. The grand jury had authorized the loan in 1893 to cover court expenses, and later recommended repayment with interest. The county judge drew a warrant for $548.65 in January 1894, but the treasurer (the defendant) declined payment. The treasurer argued that the county judge lacked authority to issue the warrant, claiming that only the county ordinary possessed such power under an 1886 statute. The treasurer further contended that an 1893 act granting the county judge authority was unconstitutional because it was a local statute passed without proper notice and legislative procedure.

The court issued a writ of mandamus requiring the treasurer to pay the warrant amount. The opinion suggests that despite the treasurer's constitutional objections to the 1893 act, the treasurer's duty to honor a lawfully drawn warrant from the county judge was mandatory. The case addresses competing claims of authority between county officials and the sufficiency of statutory authorization for county borrowing and disbursement.

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

Key issues

  • Authority of county judge to draw warrants on the county treasurer
  • Validity of local legislation establishing county court authority
  • Proper notice and legislative procedure for local statutes
  • County authorization to borrow money and obligation to repay

Procedural posture

The plaintiff sought mandamus to compel the county treasurer to pay a warrant issued by the county judge, which the treasurer had refused to honor.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion

majority opinion

By mandamus absolute the treasurer of Taylor county was required to pay to the plaintiff the amount of an order in his favor drawn on the treasurer by the county judge. It appears from the petition, which was sworn to, that the grand jury, at the February term, 1893, of the superior court, recommended that the treasurer (who-has been succeeded in office by the defendant) borrow $500 with which to defray the lawful expenses of the coui’t, and at the same time the ordinary instructed, said former treasurer to do so. At the August adjourned term the grand jury recommended that the amount due plaintiff be paid, with interest agreed upon. The $500 was loaned by plaintiff, the county at the time not having the money with wdiich to defray the court, expenses, nor until recently has it had the money to repay. On January 1, 1894, the judge of the county court drew his warrant on the -treasurer, directing him to pay to plaintiff $548.65, that being the just sum of principal and interest due him. The treasurer refused to pay it. In his answer he says that his reason for so declining was, that the county judge had no authority to-draw the warrant; that by act of the General Assembly approved December 20, 1886, the commissioners of roads and revenues were abolished, and all the powers and county matters of Taylor county were vested in and conferred upon the ordinary, who alone has authority to draw a warrant on the treasurer. He is informed that the county judge claims such power under act of the General Assembly, approved December 9,1893; but respondent submits that that act is in conflict with the-constitution and is null and void, it being a local statute,, and the following being all the notice of it that was-given or published: “Notice is hereby given that the next General Assembly of Georgia will be asked to pass the following act: An act to amend the county court-laws as regards Taylor county, and to provide for the appointment of a county solicitor for said county, and for other purposes.’ ” This was published in the Butler Herald newspaper of Taylor county, for the first time-on October 17, 1893, and the legislature convened on. October 4, 1898; and said act was not reported to the General Assembly by a committee as provided by section 7, article 3 and paragraph 15 of the constitution, and was not read and considered by a two thirds vote of the General Assembly. The county court of Taylor county was established in October, 1893, and the county judge commissioned on the 14th of that month. The answer further alleges, that while the ordinary may have instructed the former treasurer to borrow the $500 to defray lawful county expenses, there is no order or judgment of the ordinary on record, permitting or directing that this be done by the treasurer or any other person ; and it is submitted that, had such order been made, it would have been illegal and void; for, while the constitution authorizes the General Assembly to confer the right and authority on the counties to borrow money, no act of the General Assembly has been passed putting said constitutional provision in force.

C. J. Thornton, for plaintiff in error.

J. H. Martin, W. S. Wallace and C. C. West, contra.