Syfert Injury Law Firm

Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation

Call Now: 904-383-7448

2018 Georgia Code 36-3-20 | Car Wreck Lawyer

Link to State of Georgia Official Statute 2018 Georgia Code Annotated (sourced from legal.resource.org)
O.C.G.A. 36-3-20 Case Law from Google Scholar Amendments to OCGA 36-3-20

TITLE 36 LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Section 3. County Boundaries, 36-3-1 through 36-3-27.

ARTICLE 2 SETTLEMENT OF BOUNDARY DISPUTES

36-3-20. Presentment of boundary dispute by grand jury; certification to Governor; appointment of surveyor to define line; return of survey and plat to Secretary of State.

When the boundary line between two or more counties is in dispute and the grand jury of either county presents that the boundary line needs to be marked out and defined, it shall be the duty of the clerk of the superior court in the county where the presentments were made to certify the presentments to the Governor. The Governor shall appoint some suitable and competent land surveyor, who shall not reside in either county, to survey, mark out, and define the boundary line in dispute and to return the survey with plat to the Secretary of State's office to be recorded in a book to be kept for that purpose.

(Ga. L. 1887, p. 106, § 1; Civil Code 1895, § 386; Civil Code 1910, § 472; Code 1933, § 23-401; Ga. L. 1977, p. 248, § 1.)

Law reviews.

- For annual survey on local government law, see 66 Mercer L. Rev. 135 (2014).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

This section and the following section do not contemplate actions between counties, but the statutes devise a process by which the line as originally fixed by the legislature in the formation of the counties shall be ascertained and made certain. Early County v. Baker County, 137 Ga. 126, 72 S.E. 905 (1911) (see O.C.G.A. § 36-3-20 and O.C.G.A. Ch. 3, T. 36).

Availability of mandamus.

- Mandamus will issue to compel ordinary (now judge of the probate court) to comply with the Act of 1879. Dickson v. Hill, 75 Ga. 369 (1885).

Mandamus cannot dictate where boundary line to be located.

- Trial court erred by granting a county mandamus relief in a county boundary line dispute action pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 36-3-20 et seq., because while mandamus was authorized to compel the Georgia Secretary of State to do certain tasks, it was not authorized to dictate where the boundary line was to be located. Bibb County v. Monroe County, 294 Ga. 730, 755 S.E.2d 760 (2014).

Line located contrary to prior judgment does not nullify judgment.

- When the public authorities in locating line under this and the following sections located the line so that the line included land between lines contended for by parties to the litigation in which a judgment had been rendered, this did not nullify the prior judgment fixing the boundary line between the parties. Caverly v. Stovall, 143 Ga. 705, 85 S.E. 844 (1915).

Cited in Fine v. Dade County, 198 Ga. 655, 32 S.E.2d 246 (1944).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur. 2d.

- 12 Am. Jur. 2d, Boundaries, § 46 et seq.

C.J.S.

- 20 C.J.S., Counties, § 26 et seq.

ALR.

- Right of political division to challenge acts or proceedings by which its boundaries or limits are affected, 86 A.L.R. 1367.

Cases Citing O.C.G.A. § 36-3-20

Total Results: 2  |  Sort by: Relevance  |  Newest First

Copy

Bibb Cnty. v. Monroe Cnty., 294 Ga. 730 (Ga. 2014).

Cited 60 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Mar 10, 2014 | 755 S.E.2d 760

...separately by Bibb County and Secretary Kemp to address the propriety of the relief granted below. We now hold that, while mandamus may lie to require the Secretary of State to comply with his statutory obligations with regard to county boundary line disputes, see OCGA § 36-3-20 et seq., the superior court lacked the authority to require Secretary Kemp to accept a particular line as the true boundary line....
...Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings. In 2005, Governor Sonny Perdue appointed land surveyor Terry Scarborough to identify the boundary between the counties, pursuant to a statutory process for settling boundary disputes first established in the 1880s. See OCGA § 36-3-20 et seq.; Ga....
...both the order granting the writ of mandamus and the order denying its motion to intervene. This Court granted both applications and consolidated the appeals, requesting the parties to address four distinct questions: (1) whether the actions of an official under OCGA § 36-3-20 et seq....
...Scarborough survey; (3) whether the order granting mandamus was directly appealable; and (4) whether the superior court erred in denying Bibb County’s emergency motion to intervene. We address these questions seriatim. 1. Pursuant to OCGA § 36-3-20, [w]hen the boundary line between two or more counties is in dispute and the grand jury of either county presents that the boundary line needs to be marked out and defined, it shall be the duty of the clerk of the...
...Thus, we conclude that alleged violations of the boundary dispute statute by the Secretary are not non-justiciable “political questions.” 7 Accordingly, we answer the first question in the affirmative: the actions of officials under OCGA § 36-3-20 et seq....
Copy

Kemp v. Monroe Cnty.; Bibb Cnty. v. Monroe Cnty., 298 Ga. 67 (Ga. 2015).

Cited 2 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Nov 2, 2015 | 779 S.E.2d 330

... The facts, as set out in our previous opinion, show that: In 2005, Governor Sonny Perdue appointed land surveyor Terry Scarborough to identify the boundary between the counties, pursuant to a statutory process for settling boundary disputes first established in the 1880s. See OCGA § 36-3-20 et seq.; Ga....
...at 731-732. The Secretary and Bibb County then filed separate applications for discretionary appeal which this Court granted and consolidated, requesting the parties to address, in part, whether: (1) the actions of an official under OCGA § 36-3-20 et seq....
...This Court answered both questions in the affirmative, reversing the trial court’s grant of mandamus relief because, although the trial court was authorized to grant mandamus compelling the Secretary to determine the true boundary line between the counties pursuant to OCGA § 36-3-20 et seq., it was not authorized to direct the Secretary to accept and record a particular boundary line....
...e survey and plat establishing that boundary line.” Bibb County I, 294 Ga. at 737. We, thus, reversed the trial court’s grant of mandamus to the extent it directed the Secretary to record the survey prepared by Scarborough because while OCGA § 36-3-20 et seq....