O.C.G.A. § 24-11-2 (2019)

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Editor’s notes. - In light of the similarity of the statutory provisions, decisions under former Civil Code 1910, § 5810, and former O.C.G.A. §§ 24-8-1, 24-8-2, and 24-8-3 are included in the annotations for this Code section. Jurisdiction of Supreme Court. - Proceeding which was for the purpose of establishing a copy of a lost record of a will previously probated and admitted to record, and not to probate a copy of a lost or destroyed will, did not fall within the cases of which the Supreme Court had jurisdiction on writ of error. Bond v. Reid, 152 Ga. 481, 110 S.E. 281, 1922 Ga. LEXIS 195 (1922) (decided under former Civil Code 1910, § 5810). Separation of powers not violated by establishing version of law. - Application of former O.C.G.A. § 24-8-1 in a county’s action to establish a copy of a zoning ordinance that had been lost did not violate the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers because the trial court’s decree did not have the effect of either adopting or amending any zoning

ordinance when the legislative process was complete, and the ordinance from which the alleged illegality arose was, in fact, a law; the supreme court’s authority to reestablish a previously adopted ordinance, like its authority to construe statutes, neither violated the constitutional separation of powers nor constituted an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority. East Georgia Land & Dev. Co. v. Baker, 286 Ga. 551, 690 S.E.2d 145, 2010 Ga. LEXIS 86 (2010) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 24-8-1). No violation of zoning procedure law. - Application of former O.C.G.A. § 24-8-1 in a county’s action to establish a copy of a zoning ordinance that had been lost did not violate the Zoning Procedures Law (ZPL), O.C.G.A. § 36-66-1 et seq., because the trial court’s decree did not have the effect of either adopting or amending any zoning ordinance; because it did not constitute final legislative action by a local government resulting in such adoption or amendment, the decree was not a “zoning decision” to which the ZPL

applied. East Georgia Land & Dev. Co. v. Baker, 286 Ga. 551, 690 S.E.2d 145, 2010 Ga. LEXIS 86 (2010) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 24-8-1). Copy of zoning ordinance. - Superior court did not err in denying a land and development company’s motion for involuntary dismissal pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 9-11-41(b) in a county’s action under former O.C.G.A. § 24-8-1 to establish a copy of a zoning ordinance that had been lost because the superior court thoroughly reviewed the evidence upon which the court relied, including the testimony of the company’s forensic expert and several witnesses who were county officials when the ordinance was enacted and their successors in office, as well as the dovetailing of subsequent amendments to the sections and subsections of the proffered copy; that evidence was sufficient to support the superior court’s finding that the copy was a true and correct duplicate of the original ordinance adopted at the meeting of the county board of commissioners. East Georgia Land & Dev. Co. v. Baker, 286 Ga. 551, 690 S.E.2d 145, 2010 Ga. LEXIS 86 (2010) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 24-8-1). Transcription prevailing over copy of will. - In a proceeding to establish a copy of a lost or destroyed record of a will theretofore duly probated and admitted to record, a copy which a witness who was neither contradicted nor impeached sware

positively was correctly transcribed by the witness from the record of wills in the judge’s office, before the will’s destruction, must prevail over a copy testified by other witnesses to be a correct copy merely of a will (not of the record thereof), which “will” was not shown to have been probated or recorded. Bond v. Reid, 29 Ga. App. 558, 116 S.E. 318, 1923 Ga. App. LEXIS 116 (1923) (decided under former Civil Code 1910, § 5810). Application to any public records. - Superior court did not err in finding that a zoning ordinance was a public record under former O.C.G.A. § 24-8-1 and in establishing a copy as an original because the plain language of former § 248-1 showed that it applied to “any public records” and did not include any limitation to court records, and the fact that county ordinances could not normally be proved by parol evidence did not prevent such proof in the proceeding; when a proceeding was instituted to establish a copy of a public record which has been lost for many years, circumstantial evidence must be resorted to, and any circumstance legitimately offering an inference that the record was as contended may be considered, and a lost or destroyed ordinance could be established by parol evidence. East Georgia Land & Dev. Co. v. Baker, 286 Ga. 551, 690 S.E.2d 145, 2010 Ga. LEXIS 86 (2010) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 24-8-1).

RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. 29A Am. Jur. 2d, Evidence, § 1271.