O.C.G.A. § 36-11-4 (2019)
Order in which county debts paid
(a) When there are enough funds to pay all outstanding orders and other forms of indebtedness due which the treasurer is authorized to pay, such debts may be paid indiscriminately without regard to their dates. When there are enough funds to pay all forms of indebtedness dated prior to some particular date, all such forms of indebtedness may likewise be paid indiscriminately. When there are insufficient funds to pay all forms of indebtedness of equal degree, they shall be paid ratably. Under all other circumstances, debts should be paid in the order of their dates.
(b) If any person holding county orders fails to present them by December 1 to the county treasurer for payment, such orders shall be postponed in favor of all orders which were so presented and were not paid for want of funds.
History
Orig. Code 1863, §§ 530, 532; Code 1868, §§ 594, 596; Code 1873, §§ 556, 558; Code 1882, §§ 556, 558; Civil
Code 1895, §§ 463, 465; Civil Code 1910, §§ 579, 581; Code 1933, §§ 23-1604, 23-1607.
Annotations
JUDICIAL DECISIONS Sections 7-4-2 and 7-4-15 not repealed and construed in pari materia. - Former Code 1933, § 23-1604 et seq. (see now O.C.G.A. § 36-11-3 et seq.) did not expressly or by necessary implication repeal former Code 1933, §§ 57-101 and 57-110 (see now O.C.G.A. §§ 7-4-2 and 7-4-15). The statutes were to be considered together, and when so considered, the sections first mentioned contemplate administrative action by the county officers in regard to the order in which lawful county orders shall be paid. Marion County v. First Nat’l Bank, 193 Ga. 263, 18 S.E.2d 475 (1942). Compliance with section. - Former Code 1933, § 23-1306 (see now O.C.G.A. § 36-11-6) was substantially complied with by an endorsement upon the order by a designated county officer as follows: ‘‘presented for payment’’ on a named date - ‘‘insf. funds,’’ meaning insufficient funds; and this was true notwithstanding it was provided by former Code 1933, §§ 23-1604 and 23-1607 (see now O.C.G.A. § 36-11-4) ‘‘when there is not
enough to pay all [county orders] of equal degree, they shall be paid ratably.’’ Candler v. W.A. Neal & Son, 46 Ga. App. 625, 168 S.E. 265 (1933), aff ’d, 180 Ga. 89, 178 S.E. 285 (1935). Applicability of section when warrants aggregate sum larger than treasury. - When warrants for current expenses, which have been paid by another from the proceeds of a loan which the other person made to the county (to the rights of the several holders of which warrants such person has become subrogated), and other warrants issued by the county commissioners, aggregate a sum larger than that which the county has in the county’s treasury, raised from the revenues of the year in which the various liabilities were incurred, payment must be made in accordance with the rules prescribed in former Civil Code 1895, §§ 361 et seq. and 463 et seq. (see now O.C.G.A. § 36-11-2 et seq.). Butts County v. Jackson Banking Co., 129 Ga. 801, 60 S.E. 149 (1907). Cited in Maddox v. Anchor Duck Mills, 167 Ga. 695, 146 S.E. 551 (1929).
RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. - 56 Am. Jur. 2d, Municipal Corporations, Counties, and Other Political Subdivisions, § 722.