lawskills
Loading
Did you know you can download our entire database for free?


Resources
[more] 

Georgia Caselaw:
Browse
Greatest Hits

Georgia Code: Browse

(external) Findlaw Georgia Law Resources


This site exists because of donors like you.

Thanks!


Lawskills.com Georgia Caselaw
ALEXANDER v. CITIZENS & SOUTHERN NATIONAL BANK et al.
19262.
DUCKWORTH, Chief Justice.
Equitable petition. Before Judge Atkinson. Chatham Superior Court. November 25, 1955.
1I. A private citizen may not sue a municipality as a citizen and taxpayer unless he shows peculiar and special interest not shared by the general public. Perkins v. Mayor &c. of Madison, 175 Ga. 714 (165 S. E. 811).
2. There are no exceptions to the following Code sections: Code 40-1610; Code, Ann. Supp., 40-1618, 40-1619 (Ga. L. 1943, pp. 284, 287); Code 24-2908 (5), designating who may bring a suit in behalf of the State, and an individual can not sue in his own name for the use and benefit of the State. Peeples v. Byrd, 98 Ga. 688, 697 (25 S. E. 677).
3. Accordingly, the present petition brought by Mr. Alexander as a citizen and taxpayer, and suing for the use of the State, to enjoin the City of Savannah and others from changing the structure upon a lot in the city, leasing the same, and to recover $100,000 damages for the use of the State, being dependent upon the petitioner's right so to sue, was fatally defective, and the court did not err in dismissing the same on general demurrer.
4. The counter suit of one of the defendants, seeking damages against the petitioner for "malicious abuse of process", was fatally defective, in that no abuse of process whatever is shown. 72 C. J. S. 1187-1190, 119, 120; 1 Am. Jur. 178, 5, 6; Davison-Paxon Co. v. Walker, 174 Ga. 532, 534-539 (163 S. E. 212); Ellis v. Millen Hotel Co., 192 Ga. 66. 69 (14 S. E. 2d 565). But even a good case for abuse of process could not be set up as a cross-action. See Ellis v. Millen Hotel Co., 192 Ga. 66, supra; Werk v. Big Bunker Hill Mining Corp., 193 Ga. 217 (17 S. E. 2d 825). The court, therefore, erred in the judgment overruling the plaintiff's demurrer to the defendant's cross-action, pleading abuse of process.
5. For reasons stated above, the judgment sustaining the defendants' demurrers to the amended petition must be affirmed, but the judgment overruling the plaintiff's demurrer to the counter-action for damages is reversed.
Douglas, Adams & Adams, Corish & Alexander, Grady L. Dickey, contra.
H. A. Alexander, James A. Branch, for plaintiff in error.
ARGUED FEBRUARY 14, 1956 -- DECIDED MARCH 12, 1956.
Saturday May 23 02:12 EDT


This site exists because of donors like you.

Thanks!


Valid HTML 4.0!

Valid CSS!





Home - Tour - Disclaimer - Privacy - Contact Us
Copyright © 2000,2002,2004 Lawskills.com