O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 36-30-7 (2019)

Authorization and procedure for surrender of corporate charter

✓ 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

A municipal corporation in this state is authorized to surrender its corporate charter when such municipal corporation has not functioned under the corporate charter for a period of ten years, by petitioning the superior court of the county in which the municipal corporation lies, such petition being made by a majority of the registered voters of the nonfunctioning municipal corporation. Thereupon, the judge of the superior court may receive the surrendered corporate charter and by order of the court declare the municipal corporation to be dissolved. Any order of any superior court judge dissolving any municipal corporation within this state will be furnished in duplicate to the Secretary of State and shall serve as notice upon the Secretary of State that the municipal corporation has, by order of the court, been dissolved as a municipal corporation.

History

Ga. L. 1947, p. 1545, § 1.

Annotations

Law reviews. - For article, ‘‘Cities and Towns in Georgia: A Distinction with a Difference?,’’ see 14 Mercer L. Rev. 385

(1963). For article, ‘‘Selected Oddities in Georgia Municipal Law,’’ see 9 Ga. L. Rev. 783 (1975). For article surveying legislative and judicial developments in Georgia

local government law for 1978-79, see 31 Mercer L. Rev. 155 (1979). JUDICIAL DECISIONS Editor’s notes. - In light of the similarity of the statutory provisions, decisions under former Ga. L. 1872, p. 18, are included in the annotations for this Code section. Delegation of legislative power to courts. - Basic principle embodied in the separation of powers doctrine is that the legislature cannot delegate legislative power to the courts. This does not mean, however, that the legislature is forbidden from conferring power on the courts to ascertain whether the statutory requirements for dissolution of a municipal charter have been satisfied in particular cases. Harrell v. Courson, 234 Ga. 350, 216 S.E.2d 105 (1975). No delegation of legislative authority to voters. - Under the terms of this

section, there is no delegation of legislative authority to a majority of the voters of municipalities. Harrell v. Courson, 234 Ga. 350, 216 S.E.2d 105 (1975). Cessation of official duties. - Fact that mayor, recorder, and alderman voluntarily ceased to perform their official duties did not operate to terminate corporate existence. Such officers held office until their successors were elected and qualified, though not functioning. Sell v. Turner, 138 Ga. 106, 74 S.E. 783 (1912) (decided under Ga. L. 1872, p. 18). Cited in Paige v. Gray, 437 F. Supp. 137 (M.D. Ga. 1977); City of Mt. View v. Clayton County, 242 Ga. 163, 249 S.E.2d 541 (1978); Turner County v. City of Ashburn, 293 Ga. 739, 749 S.E.2d 685 (2013).

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL This section provides exclusive method of dissolution. 1963-65 Op. Att’y Gen. p. 519. RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. - 56 Am. Jur. 2d, Municipal Corporations, Counties, and Other Political Subdivisions, § 83.

C.J.S. - 62 C.J.S., Municipal Corporations, §§ 131, 137.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1 case, 2013–2013 · leading case: Turner Cnty. v. City of Ashburn, 749 S.E.2d 685 (Ga. 2013).
Turner Cnty. v. City of Ashburn, 749 S.E.2d 685 (Ga. 2013). · cites it 2× “OCGA § 36-30-7. In Harrell , this Court rejected the assertion that the dissolution statute violated the separation of powers doctrine by improperly delegating the legislative authority to dissolve municipal corporations to the superior courts.”
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.