O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 45-3-10 (2019)

Effect of failure to take and file oath upon validity of official acts

✓ 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

The official acts of an officer shall be valid regardless of his omission to take and file the oath, except in cases where so specially declared.

History

(Orig. Code 1863, § 142; Code 1868, § 137; Code 1873, § 147; Code 1882, § 147; Civil Code 1895, § 242; Civil Code 1910, § 277; Code 1933, § 89-310.)

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Official actions not invalidated for failure to take oath. - The validity of

an election held at the proper time and place by qualified persons is not affected

by their failure to take and subscribe the oath required by law, unless it appears that by reason of such failure the result of the election was different from what it would have been had the managers been duly sworn. King v. County Bd. of Educ., 174 Ga. 685, 164 S.E. 52 (1932). Liability of surety unaffected by failure to take oath. - The official bond given by a sheriff, conditioned for the faithful performance of the duties of office, obligates the surety thereon for any breach of official duty by the sheriff ’s deputies, and this includes deputies de facto. Powell v. Fidelity & Deposit Co., 45 Ga. App. 88, 163 S.E. 239 (1932). De facto officer’s acts cannot be collaterally attacked. - Defendant’s contention that notaries public lacked au-

thority because they had not taken oath of office and were therefore invalidly appointed is refuted by O.C.G.A. § 45-3-10; and the case law in this state is in accord on a de facto officer theory that by proof of officer’s acts the office is proven, and as a de facto officer those acts cannot be collaterally attacked and set aside. Little v. State, 157 Ga. App. 462, 278 S.E.2d 17 (1981). Cited in King v. County Bd. of Educ., 42 Ga. App. 563, 156 S.E. 710 (1931); Philpot v. Wells, 69 Ga. App. 489, 26 S.E.2d 155 (1943); Barrett v. Slagle, 214 Ga. 650, 106 S.E.2d 908 (1959); Mach v. State, 109 Ga. App. 154, 135 S.E.2d 467 (1964); Westley v. State, 143 Ga. App. 344, 238 S.E.2d 701 (1977).

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Official actions not invalidated for failure to take oath. - Failure of a deputy to take the required oath does not render the deputy’s acts taken under color of office to be invalid, inasmuch as not-

withstanding the deficiency, the deputy is still a ‘‘de facto officer’’; the same rule applies where the deficiency is a failure to furnish bond. 1965-66 Op. Att’y Gen. No. 66-211.

RESEARCH REFERENCES ALR. - Right of de facto officer to salary or other compensation annexed to office, 151 ALR 952. Presumption and burden of proof as to

one’s status as a de facto officer upon which validity or effect of his act depends, 161 ALR 967.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 1986–1996 · leading case: State v. Giangregorio, 352 S.E.2d 193 (Ga. Ct. App. 1986).
State v. Giangregorio, 352 S.E.2d 193 (Ga. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 4× “OCGA § 45-3-10 provides that "The official acts of an officer shall be valid regardless of his omission to take and file the oath, except in cases where so specially declared.”
Martin v. State, 394 S.E.2d 551 (Ga. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 2× “Appellant’s contention that the assistant solicitor was subject to disqualification because he had not taken the oath of office “is refuted by [OCGA § 45-3-10] which provides ‘the official acts of an officer [shall be valid regardless of] his omission to take and file the oath,…”
Brett v. Jefferson Cnty., Ga., 925 F. Supp. 786 (S.D. Ga. 1996). · cites it 2× “” O.C.G.A. § 45-3-10; Hartshorn v. Bank of Gough, 17 Ga.”
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.