O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 9-6-23 (2019)

Enforcement of corporation’s public duty

✓ 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 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.

History

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).

Annotations

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 Ga. LEXIS 442 (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 Ga. LEXIS 442 (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 Ga. LEXIS 336 (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 Ga. LEXIS 369 (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 Ga. LEXIS 369 (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 Ga. LEXIS 492 (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 Ga. LEXIS 573 (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. § 96-23, 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 Ga. LEXIS 996 (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 Ga. App. LEXIS 731 (2014).

RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. 52 Am. Jur. 2d, Mandamus, § 325 et seq.

C.J.S. 55 C.J.S., Mandamus, § 228 et seq.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 2000–2014 · leading case: Rigby v. Boatright, 751 S.E.2d 851 (Ga. 2013).
Rigby v. Boatright, 751 S.E.2d 851 (Ga. 2013). · cites it 8× “Boatright also contends that OCGA § 9-6-23 provides for the remedy of a writ of mandamus in this case.”
Brissey v. Ellison, 526 S.E.2d 851 (Ga. 2000). · cites it 4× “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…”
Rigby Et Al. v. Boatright Et Al., 767 S.E.2d 783 (Ga. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 2× “…the general public rather than a private individual. (Citation omitted.) Rigby, supra, 294 Ga. at 255 ; see also OCGA § 9-6-23.”
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.