O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 36-3-20 (2019)

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

✓ O.C.G.A. — 2019 edition (Public.Resource.Org Release 73)

Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section GA-LEGlegis.ga.gov (official) JustiaJustia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

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.

History

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

Annotations

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). 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.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases, 2014–2018 · leading case: Bibb Cnty. v. Monroe Cnty., 755 S.E.2d 760 (Ga. 2014).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Bibb Cnty. v. Monroe Cnty., 755 S.E.2d 760 (Ga. 2014). · cites it 10× “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., *731 the superior court lacked the authority to require Secretary Kemp to accept a…”

Kemp v. Monroe Cnty.; Bibb Cnty. v. Monroe Cnty., 779 S.E.2d 330 (Ga. 2015). · cites it 10× “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.”

Scarborough v. Kemp., 819 S.E.2d 710 (Ga. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 6× “In so doing, it emphasized that while OCGA § 36-3-20 et seq. provides counties a clear legal right to a process that results in a definitive determination of a disputed boundary line, .”

Terry M. Scarborough v. Brian Kemp, Sec'y of State (Ga. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “After Scarborough’s repeated failure to appear, Brian Kemp, Secretary of State, filed this original action for an “Emergency Petition for Declaratory Judgment on Enforcement of Administrative Subpoena” in the superior court, requesting that the superior court order Scarborough…”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.