Syfert Injury Law Firm

Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation

Call Now: 904-383-7448

2018 Georgia Code 9-6-23 | Car Wreck Lawyer

TITLE 9 CIVIL PRACTICE

Section 6. Extraordinary Writs, 9-6-1 through 9-6-66.

ARTICLE 2 MANDAMUS

9-6-23. Enforcement of corporation's public duty.

A private person may by mandamus enforce the performance by a corporation of a public duty as to matters in which he has a special interest.

(Civil Code 1895, § 4869; Civil Code 1910, § 5442; Code 1933, § 64-103.)

History of section.

- The language of this Code section is derived in part from the decision in Savannah & Ogeechee Canal Co. v. Shuman, 91 Ga. 400, 17 S.E. 937 (1893).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

This section applies only in cases where there is "a public duty" involved. Bregman v. Orkin Exterminating Co., 213 Ga. 561, 100 S.E.2d 267 (1957) (see O.C.G.A. § 9-6-23).

Mandamus is not remedy to enforce purely private right of stockholder against corporation when the right sought to be enforced is in no way affected with a public interest. Bregman v. Orkin Exterminating Co., 213 Ga. 561, 100 S.E.2d 267 (1957).

Citizen engaged in lumber business could compel canal company to keep its canal in navigable condition, where special damage accrued to the former because of a violation of this duty. Savannah & Ogeechee Canal Co. v. Shuman, 91 Ga. 400, 17 S.E. 937 (1893).

Private party may, by mandamus, enforce performance of public duty by common carrier as to matters in which such party has a special interest. Beck & Gregg Hdwe. Co. v. Associated Transp., Inc., 210 Ga. 545, 81 S.E.2d 515 (1954).

The defendant, a common carrier, having accepted merchandise consigned to the plaintiff, it was the defendant's duty to deliver it to the plaintiff and, on refusal to do so, mandamus will lie to require a performance of the duty. Beck & Gregg Hdwe. Co. v. Associated Transp., Inc., 210 Ga. 545, 81 S.E.2d 515 (1954).

Mandamus to compel railroad company to restore street crossing.

- If a railroad company takes out and discontinues an existing street crossing which it has maintained over its railroad, such conduct and action is equivalent to refusal to perform the public duty of maintaining such crossing; and, where mandamus proceedings are instituted to require the railroad company to restore and maintain the crossing in good condition, it is not prerequisite to allege a demand for performance of the duty. Atlantic Coast Line R.R. v. Donalsonville Grain & Elevator Co., 184 Ga. 291, 191 S.E. 87 (1937).

No mandamus to compel municipality to pay invalid judgment.

- Mandamus will not be granted to compel municipal authorities to levy and collect a tax to pay a judgment alleged to be held by the applicants against the municipality, where it appears that the judgment relied on is not a valid judgment against it. Meyer & Co. v. Jordan, 123 Ga. 669, 51 S.E. 602 (1905).

Mandamus unavailable for nominee seeking to serve on electric membership corporation.

- Trial court erred by granting a nominee's writ of mandamus because under O.C.G.A. § 9-6-23, mandamus did not lie to enforce purely private contract rights and the nominee's efforts to be qualified as a person to sit on the board of an electric membership corporation was a private right as board members were not public officers within the meaning of O.C.G.A. § 9-6-20. Rigby v. Boatright, 294 Ga. 253, 751 S.E.2d 851 (2013).

If mandamus is not proper, a mandatory injunction may be proper.

- Mere fact that a court order is mandatory, rather than prohibitive, does not transform injunctive relief into a writ of mandamus, and an injunction is not void merely because it is mandatory in nature. Moreover, a trial court may issue a mandatory injunction when mandamus relief is not available. Rigby v. Boatright, 330 Ga. App. 181, 767 S.E.2d 783 (2014).

Cited in Terrell v. Georgia R.R. & Banking, 115 Ga. 104, 41 S.E. 262 (1902); Southern Express Co. v. Rose Co., 124 Ga. 581, 53 S.E. 185 (1906); Sylvania & G.R.R. v. Hoge, 129 Ga. 734, 59 S.E. 806 (1907); Central of Ga. Ry. v. Dixon, 141 Ga. 755, 82 S.E. 37 (1914); Scott v. Flint River Pecan Co., 159 Ga. 668, 126 S.E. 769 (1925); Dodge, Inc. v. West View Cem. Ass'n, 173 Ga. 67, 159 S.E. 865 (1931); Carroll v. American Agric. Chem. Co., 175 Ga. 855, 167 S.E. 597 (1932); Claxton State Bank v. R.S. Armstrong & Bro. Co., 185 Ga. 487, 195 S.E. 418 (1938).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur. 2d.

- 52 Am. Jur. 2d, Mandamus, § 43.

C.J.S.

- 55 C.J.S., Mandamus, § 228 et seq.

Cases Citing O.C.G.A. § 9-6-23

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

Copy

Brissey v. Ellison, 526 S.E.2d 851 (Ga. 2000).

Cited 12 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jan 31, 2000 | 272 Ga. 38, 2000 Fulton County D. Rep. 418

...In most instances in which a writ of mandamus is sought, the petitioner must have a heightened interest in the outcome in order to have standing to bring the petition: to enforce by mandamus a corporation's performance of a public duty, an individual must have a "special interest" (OCGA § 9-6-23); to use mandamus to enforce a private right, one must show a pecuniary loss not compensable in damages....
Copy

Rigby v. Boatright, 294 Ga. 253 (Ga. 2013).

Cited 4 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Nov 25, 2013 | 751 S.E.2d 851, 2013 Fulton County D. Rep. 3668

...s v. Peters, 203 Ga. 350, 356 (1) (46 *255SE2d 729) (1948) (A public officer “is invested with some portion of the sovereign functions of the government, to be exercised by him for the benefit of the public.”). Boatright also contends that OCGA § 9-6-23 provides for the remedy of a writ of mandamus in this case. That Code section reads: “A private person may by mandamus enforce the performance by a corporation of a public duty as to matters in which he has a special interest.” OCGA § 9-6-23....
...her details governing the selection and service of the board of directors. See OCGA §§ 46-3-290-46-3-295. Decided November 25, 2013. Kenneth E. Futch, Jr., for appellants. Roberts Tate, James L. Roberts TV, for appellees. Further, even under OCGA § 9-6-23, “[a]s a general rule, mandamus will not lie to enforce purely private contract rights ....
...And, given the nature of Satilla’s agreement with its members such as Boatright, Satilla’s bylaws are construed according to principles of contract law. See Rushing v. Gold Kist, 256 Ga. App. 115, 117 (1) (567 SE2d 384) (2002). Simply put, a writ of mandamus under OCGA § 9-6-23 is not a remedy available to enforce the purely private right that Boatright is asserting....