general welfare clause in Georgia

1941Crum v. Bray, 121 Ga. 709 ( 49 S. E. 686 , 1 Ann.

1941Crum v. Bray, 121 Ga. 709 ( 49 S. E. 686 , 1 Ann.

1904Paulk v. Sycamore, 104 Ga. 728 ; Papworth v. Fitzgerald, 106 Ga. 378 ; Rooney v. Augusta, 117 Ga. 709 .

1899The point raised by the plaintiff in error was made, and expressly ruled on, in the cases of Paulk v. Sycamore, 104 Ga. 728 , and Brown v. Social Circle, 105 Ga. 834 .

1939Farmer v. Thomson, 133 Ga. 94, 99, 100 ( 65 S. E. 180 ); State v. Southern Express Co., 133 Ga. 113, 118 ( 65 S. E. 282 ).

1939Farmer v. Thomson, 133 Ga. 94, 99, 100 ( 65 S. E. 180 ); State v. Southern Express Co., 133 Ga. 113, 118 ( 65 S. E. 282 ).

1963Gordon Murray Productions, Inc. v. Floyd, 217 Ga. 784 ( 125 SE2d 207 ), stated that the question was whether the general welfare clause in the charter of the city and the act approved August 16, 1915 (Ga. L. 1915, pp. 480, 497) contain sufficient authority, after the ruling in the Murray case, supra, to authorize the ordinance under attack.

1963Gordon Murray Productions, Inc. v. Floyd, 217 Ga. 784 ( 125 SE2d 207 ), stated that the question was whether the general welfare clause in the charter of the city and the act approved August 16, 1915 (Ga. L. 1915, pp. 480, 497) contain sufficient authority, after the ruling in the Murray case, supra, to authorize the ordinance under attack.

1950In that case the court said ‘An action may be brought for each day the nuisance continues.’ “In the case of Harris v. State, 193 Ga. 109 , on page 118 the Supreme Court said 'The courts of this State and the text-writers have recognized that a single act may constitute two or more separate offenses.’ “And in the case of Tucker v. City of Marietta, 122 Ga. 160 , the court held: ‘Municipal corporation has authority, under the general welfare clause in its charter, to pass an ordinance prohibiting the keeping of intoxicating liquors for the purpose of unlawful sale.

1950In that case the court said `An action may be brought for each day the nuisance continues.' "In the case of Harris v. State, 193 Ga. 109 , on page 118 the Supreme Court said `The courts of this State and the textwriters have recognized that a single act may constitute two or more separate offenses.' "And in the case of Tucker v. City of Marietta, 122 Ga. 160 , the court held: `Municipal corporation has authority, under the general welfare clause in its charter, to pass an ordinance prohibiting the keeping of intoxicating liquors for the purpose of unlawful sale.

1950In that case the court said ‘An action may be brought for each day the nuisance continues.’ “In the case of Harris v. State, 193 Ga. 109 , on page 118 the Supreme Court said 'The courts of this State and the text-writers have recognized that a single act may constitute two or more separate offenses.’ “And in the case of Tucker v. City of Marietta, 122 Ga. 160 , the court held: ‘Municipal corporation has authority, under the general welfare clause in its charter, to pass an ordinance prohibiting the keeping of intoxicating liquors for the purpose of unlawful sale.

1950In that case the court said `An action may be brought for each day the nuisance continues.' "In the case of Harris v. State, 193 Ga. 109 , on page 118 the Supreme Court said `The courts of this State and the textwriters have recognized that a single act may constitute two or more separate offenses.' "And in the case of Tucker v. City of Marietta, 122 Ga. 160 , the court held: `Municipal corporation has authority, under the general welfare clause in its charter, to pass an ordinance prohibiting the keeping of intoxicating liquors for the purpose of unlawful sale.

1950A conviction under such an ordinance on one day is no bar to a conviction for keeping the same liquors for that purpose on a subsequent day.’ “In Martin v. State, 73 Ga. App. 573 , defendant was charged in 15 counts with the offense of keeping, maintaining and operating a lottery.

1950A conviction under such an ordinance on one *454 day is no bar to a conviction for keeping the same liquors for that purpose on a subsequent day.' "In Martin v. State, 73 Ga. App. 573 , defendant was charged in 15 counts with the offense of keeping, maintaining and operating a lottery.

1940Shaver v. Martin, 166 Ga. 424 (2) ( 143 S. E. 402 ) ; Murphy v. California, 225 U. S. 623 (32 Sup. Ct. 697, 56 L. ed. 1229, 41 L.

1940Shaver v. Martin, 166 Ga. 424 (2) ( 143 S. E. 402 ) ; Murphy v. California, 225 U. S. 623 (32 Sup. Ct. 697, 56 L. ed. 1229, 41 L.

1940Shaver v. Martin, 166 Ga. 424 (2) ( 143 S. E. 402 ) ; Murphy v. California, 225 U. S. 623 (32 Sup. Ct. 697, 56 L. ed. 1229, 41 L.

1939Chapman, supra, not imposing a duty, but merely granting authority, and it is found in the general-welfare clause of the city charter.

1929Since the only authority conferred upon the defendant municipality to erect and maintain an electric-light plant is contained in the general welfare clause of its charter, and since) under the ruling made by the Supreme Court in Mayor &c. of Gainesville v. Dunlap, supra, such authority does not extend beyond its corporate limits, the act of the joint superintendent in turning the current from the steam-plant onto the lines of the power company outside the city, in pursuance of the company’s business in serving its outside customers, even if within the scope of the superintendent’s employment a

1929Since the only authority conferred upon the defendant municipality to erect and maintain an electric-light plant is contained in the general welfare clause of its charter, and since) under the ruling made by the Supreme Court in Mayor &c. of Gainesville v. Dunlap, supra, such authority does not extend beyond its corporate limits, the act of the joint superintendent in turning the current from the steam-plant onto the lines of the power company outside the city, in pursuance of the company’s business in serving its outside customers, even if within the scope of the superintendent’s employment a

1929Since the only authority conferred upon the defendant municipality to erect and maintain an electric-light plant is contained in the general welfare clause of its charter, and since) under the ruling made by the Supreme Court in Mayor &c. of Gainesville v. Dunlap, supra, such authority does not extend beyond its corporate limits, the act of the joint superintendent in turning the current from the steam-plant onto the lines of the power company outside the city, in pursuance of the company’s business in serving its outside customers, even if within the scope of the superintendent’s employment a

1927In Morris v. Rome, 10 Ga. 532 , an ordinance prohibiting the retail of spirituous liquors by those to whom licenses had been granted, within the City of Eome, after the hour of ten o’clock at night, was held not to essentially impair the right to retail under the license granted, but was only a regulation of the exercise of it for the benefit of the peace, order, and good government of the city.

1927R. 137 ), it was said: “A municipal corporation can not, under the general welfare clause usually found in municipal charters, prohibit one from carrying on a lawful vocation on Christmas day, when there is nothing in the character of the business carried on which is calculated to interfere with the peace, good order, and safety of the community.” In the case of Clein v. Atlanta, 164 Ga. 529 ( 139 S. E. 46 ), this court had under consideration an ordinance regulating the hours during which the business of auctioning jewelry might be conducted.

1927R. 137 ), it was said: “A municipal corporation can not, under the general welfare clause usually found in municipal charters, prohibit one from carrying on a lawful vocation on Christmas day, when there is nothing in the character of the business carried on which is calculated to interfere with the peace, good order, and safety of the community.” In the case of Clein v. Atlanta, 164 Ga. 529 ( 139 S. E. 46 ), this court had under consideration an ordinance regulating the hours during which the business of auctioning jewelry might be conducted.

1924“While a municipal corporation may lawfully do such things as are necessarily incident to the proper discharge of its public functions, it is not, as a general rule, within the power of such a corporation to engage in an occupation or business such as is usually pursued by private persons.” Keen v. Mayor &c. of Waycross, 101 Ga. 588 ( 29 S. E. 42 ).

1924“While a municipal corporation may lawfully do such things as are necessarily incident to the proper discharge of its public functions, it is not, as a general rule, within the power of such a corporation to engage in an occupation or business such as is usually pursued by private persons.” Keen v. Mayor &c. of Waycross, 101 Ga. 588 ( 29 S. E. 42 ).

1914Sawyer v. City of Blakely, 2 Ga. App. 159 (58 S. E. 399). 3, 4.

1914Sawyer v. City of Blakely, 2 Ga. App. 159 (58 S. E. 399). 3, 4.

1911Badkins v. Robinson, 53 Ga. 613 ; Sanders v. Elberton, 50 Ga. 178 ; Campbell v. Thomasville, 6 Ga. App. 212 ( 64 S. E. 815 ); Cassidy v. Macon, 133 Ga. 689 ( 66 S. E. 941 ). (а) The ordinance of the City of Bainbridge prescribing the territory -within which “near beer” may be sold, and making it unlawful to sell “near beer” without such territory in fhe city limits, does not appear to be unreasonable. (б) The ordinance passed December 5, 1910, making it unlawful to sell “near beer” after January 1, 1911, in the city limits except within a designated territory therein, is not shown to be unreas

1911Badkins v. Robinson, 53 Ga. 613 ; Sanders v. Elberton, 50 Ga. 178 ; Campbell v. Thomasville, 6 Ga. App. 212 ( 64 S. E. 815 ); Cassidy v. Macon, 133 Ga. 689 ( 66 S. E. 941 ). (а) The ordinance of the City of Bainbridge prescribing the territory -within which “near beer” may be sold, and making it unlawful to sell “near beer” without such territory in fhe city limits, does not appear to be unreasonable. (б) The ordinance passed December 5, 1910, making it unlawful to sell “near beer” after January 1, 1911, in the city limits except within a designated territory therein, is not shown to be unreas

1911Badkins v. Robinson, 53 Ga. 613 ; Sanders v. Elberton, 50 Ga. 178 ; Campbell v. Thomasville, 6 Ga. App. 212 ( 64 S. E. 815 ); Cassidy v. Macon, 133 Ga. 689 ( 66 S. E. 941 ). (а) The ordinance of the City of Bainbridge prescribing the territory -within which “near beer” may be sold, and making it unlawful to sell “near beer” without such territory in fhe city limits, does not appear to be unreasonable. (б) The ordinance passed December 5, 1910, making it unlawful to sell “near beer” after January 1, 1911, in the city limits except within a designated territory therein, is not shown to be unreas

1911Badkins v. Robinson, 53 Ga. 613 ; Sanders v. Elberton, 50 Ga. 178 ; Campbell v. Thomasville, 6 Ga. App. 212 ( 64 S. E. 815 ); Cassidy v. Macon, 133 Ga. 689 ( 66 S. E. 941 ). (а) The ordinance of the City of Bainbridge prescribing the territory -within which “near beer” may be sold, and making it unlawful to sell “near beer” without such territory in fhe city limits, does not appear to be unreasonable. (б) The ordinance passed December 5, 1910, making it unlawful to sell “near beer” after January 1, 1911, in the city limits except within a designated territory therein, is not shown to be unreas

1911Badkins v. Robinson, 53 Ga. 613 ; Sanders v. Elberton, 50 Ga. 178 ; Campbell v. Thomasville, 6 Ga. App. 212 ( 64 S. E. 815 ); Cassidy v. Macon, 133 Ga. 689 ( 66 S. E. 941 ). (а) The ordinance of the City of Bainbridge prescribing the territory -within which “near beer” may be sold, and making it unlawful to sell “near beer” without such territory in fhe city limits, does not appear to be unreasonable. (б) The ordinance passed December 5, 1910, making it unlawful to sell “near beer” after January 1, 1911, in the city limits except within a designated territory therein, is not shown to be unreas

1911Badkins v. Robinson, 53 Ga. 613 ; Sanders v. Elberton, 50 Ga. 178 ; Campbell v. Thomasville, 6 Ga. App. 212 ( 64 S. E. 815 ); Cassidy v. Macon, 133 Ga. 689 ( 66 S. E. 941 ). (а) The ordinance of the City of Bainbridge prescribing the territory -within which “near beer” may be sold, and making it unlawful to sell “near beer” without such territory in fhe city limits, does not appear to be unreasonable. (б) The ordinance passed December 5, 1910, making it unlawful to sell “near beer” after January 1, 1911, in the city limits except within a designated territory therein, is not shown to be unreas

1909The general welfare clause of the charter of the City of Macon provides, “That the Mayor and the Aldermen shall constitute the legislative department of the city government, and as such shall be vested with full power and authority from time to time to make and establish such rules and ordinances as they shall deem proper and requisite for the security, welfare, health, and convenience of the city, and for preserving the peace, order, and good government of the same. ” Section 84 of the charter (Acts 1893, p. 264) confers upon the municipal government authority “to levy and collect a license t

1909The general welfare clause of the charter of the City of Macon provides, “That the Mayor and the Aldermen shall constitute the legislative department of the city government, and as such shall be vested with full power and authority from time to time to make and establish such rules and ordinances as they shall deem proper and requisite for the security, welfare, health, and convenience of the city, and for preserving the peace, order, and good government of the same. ” Section 84 of the charter (Acts 1893, p. 264) confers upon the municipal government authority “to levy and collect a license t

1909The general welfare clause of the charter of the City of Macon provides, “That the Mayor and the Aldermen shall constitute the legislative department of the city government, and as such shall be vested with full power and authority from time to time to make and establish such rules and ordinances as they shall deem proper and requisite for the security, welfare, health, and convenience of the city, and for preserving the peace, order, and good government of the same. ” Section 84 of the charter (Acts 1893, p. 264) confers upon the municipal government authority “to levy and collect a license t

1909The general welfare clause of the charter of the City of Macon provides, “That the Mayor and the Aldermen shall constitute the legislative department of the city government, and as such shall be vested with full power and authority from time to time to make and establish such rules and ordinances as they shall deem proper and requisite for the security, welfare, health, and convenience of the city, and for preserving the peace, order, and good government of the same. ” Section 84 of the charter (Acts 1893, p. 264) confers upon the municipal government authority “to levy and collect a license t

1908Mayor of Cartersville v. Lanham, 67 Ga. 753 ; Crum v. Bray, 121 Ga. 709 ( 49 S. E. 689 ). 2.

1908Mayor of Cartersville v. Lanham, 67 Ga. 753 ; Crum v. Bray, 121 Ga. 709 ( 49 S. E. 689 ). 2.