O.C.G.A. § 1-1-9 (2019)

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS the Code and becomes a part of the law of this state upon the adoption of the Code, the contents of the title of the original Act are immaterial. Huff v. Markham, 70 Ga. 284 (1883); Central of Ga. Ry. v. State, 104 Ga. 831, 31 S.E. 531, 42 L.R.A. 518 (1898); Kennedy v. Meara, 127 Ga. 68, 56 S.E. 243, 9 Ann. Cas. 396 (1906). Rulings on statute applicable to Code. - Rulings are all as applicable to the Code as to the statute on which they were made, for the Code is not substantially different from the statute. Wall v. Jones, 62 Ga. 725 (1879). Omissions considered repeals. - Where provision of the Code treats the entire subject matter, what is omitted is repealed. Shumate v. Williams, 34 Ga. 245 (1866); Georgia R.R. & Banking Co. v. Wynn, 42 Ga. 331 (1871); Miller v. Southwestern R.R., 55 Ga. 143 (1875). Valid statute erroneously omitted still in force. - A valid statute of this state in existence at the date of the adoption of the Code, but omitted therefrom through oversight or mistake, is still in force unless expressly or by necessary implication repealed by a subsequent statute or some provision of the Code. Georgia R.R. & Banking v. Wright, 124 Ga. 596, 53 S.E. 251, aff ’d, 125 Ga. 589, 54 S.E. 52 (1906), rev’d on other grounds, 207 U.S. 127, 28 S. Ct. 47, 52 L. Ed. 134 (1907); Hicks v. Moyer, 10 Ga. App. 488, 73 S.E. 754 (1912); Farley v. State, 12 Ga. App. 643, 77 S.E. 1131 (1913); Wiggins v. State, 17 Ga. App. 748, 88 S.E. 411 (1916). Where part of a statute omitted may be restored without inconsis-

Editor’s notes. - In light of the similarity of the statutory provisions, annotations decided under former Code 1863, § 2 are included in the annotations for this Code section. Driving while license revoked under former Code provision. - Where a driver was declared a habitual violator by the Department of Public Safety under the provisions of former Code 1933, § 68B-308(a), then was convicted for operating a motor vehicle while the driver’s license was still revoked pursuant to that action, after the Official Code of Georgia Annotated became effective on November 1, 1982, the revocation of the driver’s license was effective ‘‘under this Code section’’ within the meaning of O.C.G.A. § 40-5-58(c), and the driver can be sentenced to a five-year confinement pursuant to that section. Ketchum v. State, 167 Ga. App. 858, 307 S.E.2d 742 (1983). Effect of adopting the Code was to enact into one statute all of the sections of the Code. Barnes v. Carter, 120 Ga. 895, 48 S.E. 387 (1904); Atkinson v. Swords, 11 Ga. App. 167, 74 S.E. 1093 (1912). See also Central of Ga. Ry. v. State, 104 Ga. 831, 31 S.E. 531, 42 L.R.A. 518 (1898); Thornton v. State, 5 Ga. App. 397, 63 S.E. 301 (1908). Adoption, not the compilation, is the legislative Act. Western & A.R.R. v. Young, 83 Ga. 512, 10 S.E. 197 (1889). Errors were not adopted. City of Atlanta v. Gate City Gas Light Co., 71 Ga. 106 (1883); Bailey v. McAlpin, 122 Ga. 616, 50 S.E. 388 (1905). If Act embodied in Code, title immaterial. - If an Act has been embodied in

tency, there is no repeal. Daniel v. Jackson, 53 Ga. 87 (1874). Act relating to costs on discharge before magistrate remains valid. - The 1811 Act relating to costs on discharge before the magistrate, though not embodied in the Code, not being inconsistent with any of the provisions thereof, is still of force. Gault v. Wallis, 53 Ga. 675 (1875). Discrepancies reconciled by court. - Because the subjects of the Code were written by different men, it is the duty of the court to reconcile discrepancies. Greer v. Haugabook, 47 Ga. 282 (1872). See also Gillis v. Gillis, 96 Ga. 1, 23 S.E. 107, 51 Am. St. R. 121, 30 L.R.A. 143 (1895). Section not retroactive. - The Code is intended to apply to future contracts,

and this section does not have a retroactive operation. Bass v. Ware, 34 Ga. 386 (1866); Bryan v. Doolittle, 38 Ga. 255 (1868); Napier v. Jones, 45 Ga. 520 (1872); Gholston v. Gholston, 54 Ga. 285 (1875). Sale by executor under will made prior to Code valid. - Where the will of a testator who died prior to the adoption of the Code created a general power of sale in his executors for certain purposes named, a private sale was valid though not made until after the Code was adopted. Smith v. Hulsey, 62 Ga. 341 (1879). Certain decisions made before the adoption of the Code are not now law. Adams v. Barlow, 69 Ga. 302 (1882). Cited in Eaves v. J.C. Bradford & Co., 173 Ga. App. 470, 326 S.E.2d 830 (1985).