Section must be strictly complied with.

- In order to render election legal, provisions of this section must be strictly complied with. Bowen v. Mayor of Greenesboro, 79 Ga. 709, 4 S.E. 159 (1887); Mayor of Athens v. Hemerick, 89 Ga. 674, 16 S.E. 72 (1892); Ponder v. Mayor of Forsyth, 96 Ga. 572, 23 S.E. 498 (1895); Smith v. Mayor of Dublin, 113 Ga. 833, 39 S.E. 327 (1901); Berrien County v. Paulk, 150 Ga. 829, 105 S.E. 491 (1920); Allen v. City of Atlanta, 166 Ga. 28, 142 S.E. 262 (1928) (see O.C.G.A. § 36-82-1).

Election not invalid because of disregard of directory provisions.

- Bond election should not be declared invalid on account of a disregard of merely directory provisions of election laws when such would not render an election for municipal officers invalid. Brumby v. City of Marietta, 132 Ga. 408, 64 S.E. 321 (1909).

Section 9-13-141 does not affect this section.

- Former Civil Code 1895, § 5458 (see O.C.G.A. § 9-13-141), relating to the publication of notices of sales and orders by certain public officers and others, did not repeal or modify that portion of former Civil Code 1895, § 377 (see O.C.G.A. § 36-82-1), which required that notice of an election called for the purpose of determining whether bonds shall be issued by a county shall be published for a space of 30 days next preceding the day of the election. Davis v. Dougherty County, 116 Ga. 491, 42 S.E. 764 (1902).

Denial by election to issue school bonds does not impair right of taxation. Ayers v. McCalla, 95 Ga. 555, 22 S.E. 295 (1895).

County has no authority to enter into executory contract.

- There is no authority of law for a county to enter into an executory contract for the sale of bonds which, at the time of the contract, the county is not authorized to issue. For a breach of such an undertaking an action for damages will not lie against the county. Robinson-Humphrey Co. v. Wilcox County, 129 Ga. 104, 58 S.E. 644 (1907).

No authority to call election when work lawfully begun. Hogan v. State, 133 Ga. 875, 67 S.E. 268 (1910).

When statute has not been complied with, the issuance of bonds may be restrained by injunction. Bowen v. Mayor of Greenesboro, 79 Ga. 709, 4 S.E. 159 (1887); Mayor of Athens v. Hemerick, 89 Ga. 674, 16 S.E. 72 (1892); Mayor of Perry v. Norwood, 99 Ga. 300, 25 S.E. 648 (1896).

Unnecessary to publish authority of mayor to call election.

- It is not necessary to publish the ordinance, or resolution, by which the mayor was authorized to order an election to be held upon the question whether or not such bonds should be issued, provided the notice required by law was duly published. Heilbron v. Mayor of Cuthbert, 96 Ga. 312, 23 S.E. 206 (1895).

No authority to issue bonds for past indebtedness. Mayor of Macon v. Jones, 122 Ga. 455, 50 S.E. 340 (1905).

When separate submissions required.

- If it can be said that the proposed improvements are not naturally related or connected, then it is clear that separate submissions are required; if, on the other hand, the several parts of the project are plainly so related that, united, the parts form but one rounded whole, it is equally clear that the parts may be grouped together and submitted as one proposition. Miles v. State, 96 Ga. App. 610, 101 S.E.2d 173 (1957).

Issue of bonds in installments.

- Nothing in the Constitution or this section is inconsistent with authorization of an issue of bonds in installments and the levy of the tax for the payment of each installment in the year of the bond's issue. Brady v. City of Atlanta, 17 F.2d 764 (5th Cir. 1927) (see O.C.G.A. § 36-82-1).

Cited in Houston v. Thomas, 168 Ga. 67, 146 S.E. 908 (1929); Gibbs v. Ty Ty Consol. Sch. Dist., 168 Ga. 379, 147 S.E. 764 (1929); Lumpkin v. State, 73 Ga. App. 229, 36 S.E.2d 123 (1945); Hattrich v. State, 116 Ga. App. 281, 156 S.E.2d 925 (1967); Luther v. DeKalb County, 229 Ga. 18, 189 S.E.2d 387 (1972).

Requirements as to notice mandatory.

- Law requiring notice to be given in a certain way is mandatory, and a failure to comply with the law vitiates the election, if objection is raised at the proper time and in the proper way. Irvin v. Gregory, 86 Ga. 605, 13 S.E. 120 (1891); Davis v. Dougherty County, 116 Ga. 491, 42 S.E. 764 (1902).

Failure to use explicit language treated as irregularity.

- Though the notice of the election provided for by an Act may not be in the clearest and most unequivocal terms, when the terms of the notice were such as to show that the question was necessarily to be passed upon in the election, the failure to use more explicit language in this respect (the notice as to all other matters being sufficient) will, after the election has taken place and after the bonds, in pursuance of its result, have been issued and sold and the bonds' proceeds applied as required by the Act, be treated as a mere irregularity not invalidating the bonds, and one of which it is too late for a taxpayer who participated in the election and who had knowledge of all the facts to complain. Brand v. Town of Lawrenceville, 104 Ga. 486, 30 S.E. 954 (1898).

Inadvertently omitting last publication treated as mere irregularity.

- When the advertisement prescribed was published once a week for four weeks, and the last publication was inadvertently omitted but the other three were duly made, the omission may be treated as a mere irregularity, if more than two-thirds of the qualified voters actually voted, and if the result has been acquiesced in until after action has been taken on the faith thereof by which substantial rights have arisen. Irvin v. Gregory, 86 Ga. 605, 13 S.E. 120 (1891).

Ordinance not meeting requirements of this section void.

- If notice be given under an ordinance prescribing the items of the notice and the ordinance does not meet the requirements set forth in this section, both the ordinance and the notice are void and of no effect. Wilkins v. City of Waynesboro, 116 Ga. 359, 42 S.E. 767 (1902); Shinall v. City of Cartersville, 144 Ga. 219, 87 S.E. 290 (1915); Scott Sch. Dist. v. Carter, 28 Ga. App. 412, 111 S.E. 216, cert. denied, 28 Ga. App. 819 (1922) (see O.C.G.A. § 36-82-1).

Amount of bonds to be issued and for what purpose.

- Notice which provides that a given amount should be used for the purpose of building a school, and another amount for the improvement of the water plant, and the surplus, if any, to be used by the mayor and council in such a manner as the mayor and council might see fit, does not meet the legal requirements of a notice which shall specify "what amount of bonds are to be issued, and for what purpose." Smith v. Mayor of Dublin, 113 Ga. 833, 39 S.E. 327 (1901).

Need to state amount of debt to be incurred.

- Even if no legislation is necessary to authorize a municipal corporation to hold an election to determine whether a debt other than a bonded indebtedness shall be incurred, an election held pursuant to an ordinance and notice which does not state the amount of the debt to be incurred will not be sufficient to authorize the execution of a contract incurring an indebtedness. City Council v. Dawson Waterworks Co., 106 Ga. 696, 32 S.E. 907 (1899).

Degree of specificity of bond purpose.

- When the order and notice of election stated that the proceeds were used in improving and constructing the public roads on a certain county naming the roads to be improved and the order in which the roads were to be worked, such statement is sufficient under this section requiring that the purpose for which the bonds were to be issued should be stated. Moody v. Board of Comm'rs, 29 Ga. App. 21, 113 S.E. 103 (1922) (see O.C.G.A. § 36-82-1).

Notice of bond election was not subject to the criticism that the notice indicated that the bonds were to be voted for the purpose of providing funds for two or more distinct purposes, when the purposes stated were all related to providing additions and improvements to school facilities in the county. Miles v. State, 96 Ga. App. 610, 101 S.E.2d 173 (1957).

Publication in paper used by sheriff.

- Notice of election for issuance of bonds must be in paper in which sheriff publishes the sheriff's advertisements. Coffee v. Ragsdale, 112 Ga. 705, 37 S.E. 968 (1901); Scott Sch. Dist. v. Carter, 28 Ga. App. 412, 111 S.E. 216, cert. denied, 28 Ga. App. 819 (1922).

Requirement of publication for 30 days.

- If the publication was made only twice, on January 21 and February 4, and the election was held on February 5, this was not a compliance with the requirements of the law. Bowen v. Mayor of Greenesboro, 79 Ga. 709, 4 S.E. 159 (1887).

When it appeared that an election was held on Saturday, January 23, and that notice thereof had been published in the proper newspaper once a week for six weeks, beginning on Friday, December 18, and ending on Friday, January 22, since the notice was inserted the first time at least 30 days before the date of the election and as nearly that precise number of days immediately preceding such date as was possible under the circumstances, the fact that the publication began more than 30 days prior to such date was immaterial and afforded taxpayers no cause for attacking the validity of the notice. Clark v. Union Sch. Dist., 36 Ga. App. 80, 135 S.E. 318 (1926).

Publication of Act does not comply with requirements as to notice.

- Fact that a local Act was published before the day of the election, and that the notice prescribed the amount of the bonds, the interest thereon, and when the bonds were to be paid off, was not a sufficient compliance with this section; nor was the fact that, out of 189 voters, only 17 voted against the measure, a sufficient answer to the illegality of the notice. Bowen v. Mayor of Greenesboro, 79 Ga. 709, 4 S.E. 159 (1887) (see O.C.G.A. § 36-82-1).

Notice affecting custodian of funds.

- Bank as custodian of the proceeds of county bonds is chargeable with the notice given under this section as to the purpose of the bond issue and must not permit the funds to be used for other purposes. Bank of Chatsworth v. Hagedorn Constr. Co., 162 Ga. 488, 134 S.E. 310 (1926) (see O.C.G.A. § 36-82-1).

Ordinance not meeting requirements of this section void. Allen v. City of Atlanta, 166 Ga. 28, 142 S.E. 262 (1928) (see O.C.G.A. § 36-82-1).

Reduction of amount before validation.

- When the election was regular as to all the requirements except that the amount exceeded the constitutional limit, the judge erred in reducing the amount of the bonds issued to a sum within such limit and then declaring the issuance of such bonds would be allowed. Berrien County v. Paulk, 150 Ga. 829, 105 S.E. 491 (1920).

When petition did not present question whether notice was illegal because amount was unconstitutional, injunction would not lie to restrain the authorities from issuing a less and proper amount. Heilbron v. Mayor of Cuthbert, 96 Ga. 312, 23 S.E. 206 (1895).

When intervenors did not raise point that bonds were in excess of constitutional limit the intervenors' cannot, in the intervenors' bill of exceptions, assign this as error. Sewell v. City of Tallapoosa, 145 Ga. 19, 88 S.E. 577 (1916).

Amount of interest.

- Specifying that interest is to be paid annually is not sufficient; failure to specify the amount to be paid renders the notice defective. Mayor of Athens v. Hemerick, 89 Ga. 674, 16 S.E. 72 (1892); Mayor of Perry v. Norwood, 99 Ga. 300, 25 S.E. 648 (1896); City of Thomasville v. Thomasville Elec. Light & Gas Co., 122 Ga. 399, 50 S.E. 169 (1905).

Exact gross sum of interest not necessary.

- It is not essential to the validity of the notice that the notice should state the precise gross sum, in dollars and cents, to be annually paid as interest; the facts actually stated furnishing a basis by which a calculation could be easily and readily made showing the exact amount of interest to be paid. Ponder v. Mayor of Forsyth, 96 Ga. 572, 23 S.E. 498 (1895).

Notice need not specify price of bonds.

- Notice is not invalid because the price at which the bonds are to be sold is not stated therein. Wimberly v. County of Twiggs, 116 Ga. 50, 42 S.E. 478 (1902).

Notice silent as to collection of annual tax.

- Fact that the notice of the bond election was silent as to the collection of the annual tax affords no reason why the bonds should not be validated. Woodall v. Town of Adel, 122 Ga. 301, 50 S.E. 102 (1905); Oliver v. City of Elberton, 124 Ga. 64, 52 S.E. 15 (1905).

Advertisement taken as best evidence of intentions of fund use.

- Advertisement, a copy of which was attached to a petition as an exhibit, was the best evidence of the intention of the school board with respect to the use of the bond funds. In the absence of allegations of facts showing that the board had a secret, undisclosed intention to use the funds for some purpose other than that indicated by the advertisement or facts showing the deliberate perpetration of a fraud on the voters by the board, this advertisement must be taken as the best evidence of the board's intention with respect to the use of these funds. Miles v. State, 96 Ga. App. 610, 101 S.E.2d 173 (1957).

Special law not void when the law merely prescribes additional requirements.

- Special law which is void is one in conflict with a general law, and not one in harmony with the special and prescribing additional matters in regard to the election not in conflict with the general law. A special law providing that notice be published in an official gazette is construed in regard as to the general law as to what notice should contain. Farmer v. Mayor of Thomson, 133 Ga. 94, 65 S.E. 180 (1909).

Election under local Act must follow section.

- Election under local Act making provision that in case of a school district the board of trustees of that district shall call the election on the question of whether the trustees shall incur a bonded debt to build and equip a schoolhouse must be concluded as provided by former Civil Code 1910, § 440 et seq. (see O.C.G.A. § 36-82-1 et seq.). Jennings v. New Bronwood Sch. Dist., 156 Ga. 15, 118 S.E. 560 (1923).

Local law concerning registration applies only to elections specified.

- Local law for the registration of voters in a given county which declares it unlawful to vote at any election without having first registered, and then proceeds to require registration biennially in those years in which elections are held for Governor, members of Congress and of the General Assembly applies only to elections for the officers designated, leaving the general law to operate upon elections under this section. Kaigler v. Roberts, 89 Ga. 476, 15 S.E. 542 (1892) (see O.C.G.A. § 36-82-1).

Local Act concerning registration only for election of officers.

- When an Act contemplates a system of registration for only one election annually, and consequently that system is confined to the election of municipal officers at an election held to determine the question of issuing bonds, there is no statutory requirement upon the municipal authorities to order registration as a preliminary to this election. Howell v. Mayor of Athens, 91 Ga. 139, 16 S.E. 966 (1893).

County school bond referendum.

- County school board is empowered to authorize the calling of a school bond referendum which the county election superintendent shall then call by publishing the appropriate notice. 1985 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 85-18.

Bond referendum may be held on date of presidential preference primary, but the bond referendum should be placed on a separate ballot so that voters need not request a party ballot to vote only in the referendum. 1975 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 75-132.

Appropriate use of bond proceeds and savings generated by bond refundings.

- Georgia Constitution and Georgia statutes do not provide any latitude to use bond proceeds for additional capital expenditures whether or not the proceeds are spent on projects which may have been approved by the voters at the time of the original bond referendum. Accordingly, all proceeds generated at closing of the refunding issue should be spent on the costs of the refunding or used to pay principal, interest, and premiums on the refunded debt. Furthermore, a new tax levy appropriately sized to retire the new refunding bonds should be provided for prior to issuance of the refunding bonds. If any excess proceeds result from the new tax levy, such excess proceeds shall not be available for transfer to capital projects until all refundings are repaid. 1994 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 94-8.

Am. Jur. 2d.

- 64 Am. Jur. 2d, Public Securities and Obligations, §§ 113 et seq., 126 et seq., 142.

C.J.S.

- 20 C.J.S., Counties, § 354 et seq. 64A C.J.S., Municipal Corporations, § 2145 et seq.

ALR.

- Change in law as to municipal bonds as affecting bonds previously authorized or voted, but not issued, 19 A.L.R. 1055.

Estoppel to deny validity of municipal bonds issued under an unconstitutional statute, 37 A.L.R. 1310.

Sale of municipal or other public bonds at less than par or face value, 91 A.L.R. 7; 162 A.L.R. 396.

Effect of inclusion in call for election, or in proposal for bond issue submitted to people, of unauthorized method of payment or retirement, 93 A.L.R. 362.

Funding or refunding obligations as subject to conditions respecting limitation of indebtedness or approval by voters, 97 A.L.R. 442.

Mistake, ambiguity, or omission in statement as to indebtedness, in call for election or proposal for bond issue, as affecting validity of election or bonds issued pursuant thereto, 116 A.L.R. 1258.

Statement regarding cost of proposed public improvement in ballot for special election in that regard, 117 A.L.R. 892.

Power and discretion of officer or board authorized to issue bonds of governmental unit as regards terms or conditions to be included therein, 119 A.L.R. 190.

Rights and obligations arising out of bid for municipal bond issue, 139 A.L.R. 1047.

Constitutional or statutory requirement of prior approval by electors of issuance of bonds or incurring of indebtedness, by municipality, county, or state, as applicable to bonds or other instruments not creating indebtedness, 146 A.L.R. 604.

Validity, within authorized debt, tax, or voted limit, of bond issue in excess of amount permitted by law, 175 A.L.R. 823.

Validity of submission of proposition to voters at bond election as affected by inclusion of several structures or units, 4 A.L.R.2d 617.

Validity of municipal bond issue as against owners of property annexation of which to municipality became effective after date of election at which issue was approved by voters, 10 A.L.R.2d 559.