Objectives of paragraph.

- An object of this paragraph is to put legislators and the public who might be affected on guard as to all matters connected with subject matter. Ragans v. Ragans, 200 Ga. 890, 39 S.E.2d 162 (1946); Bienert v. State, 82 Ga. App. 179, 60 S.E.2d 575 (1950) (see Ga. Const. 1983, Art. III, Sec. V, Para. IV).

This paragraph has no reference to Act complete in itself, which does not purport to amend any particular law. Bagwell v. City of Lawrenceville, 94 Ga. 654, 21 S.E. 903 (1894) (see Ga. Const. 1983, Art. III, Sec. V, Para. IV).

Paragraph does not apply to constitutional amendments. Cooney v. Foote, 142 Ga. 647, 83 S.E. 537 (1914) (see Ga. Const. 1983, Art. III, Sec. V, Para. IV).

Paragraph does not apply to Acts passed pursuant thereto. McCall v. Wilkins, 145 Ga. 342, 89 S.E. 219 (1916) (see Ga. Const. 1983, Art. III, Sec. V, Para. IV).

Paragraph does not apply to general tax Acts.

- This paragraph does not apply to general tax Acts designed to raise revenue for the purposes of the state government from time to time, and according to changing necessities and exigencies the state may require less revenue or more than theretofore. Fidelity Fruit & Produce Co. v. City of Atlanta, 183 Ga. 698, 189 S.E. 527 (1937) (see Ga. Const. 1983, Art. III, Sec. V, Para. IV).

Act which does not purport to amend or repeal any particular law or section is not within purview of this paragraph. Hines v. Etheridge, 173 Ga. 870, 162 S.E. 113 (1931); Aven v. Steiner Cancer Hosp., 189 Ga. 126, 5 S.E.2d 356 (1939) (see Ga. Const. 1983, Art. III, Sec. V, Para. IV).

Adoption of Code containing Act originally passed in violation of this paragraph cures the defect. McFarland v. Donaldson, 115 Ga. 567, 41 S.E. 1000 (1902); Aultman v. Hodge, 147 Ga. 626, 95 S.E. 297 (1918) (see Ga. Const. 1983, Art. III, Sec. V, Para. IV).

Parts of third Act incorporated.

- Where the body of the Act amends the original act by adding a new section which makes certain sections of a third Act part of the Act as amended, this is a sufficient description under this section of the alteration to be made in the Act sought to be amended, and this is so although such third Act and the amending Act became laws on the same day. Holland v. State, 155 Ga. 795, 118 S.E. 203 (1923) (see Ga. Const. 1983, Art. III, Sec. V, Para. IV).

Effect of abrogation of law.

- Where an amending Act recites that the old Act as amended shall read in a certain way, such recital as to what the law shall be after the passage of the amended Act abrogates everything in the old law which is not contained therein. Gilbert v. Georgia R.R. & Banking Co., 104 Ga. 412, 30 S.E. 673 (1898).

For effect of repealing a repealing Act, see McCants v. Layfield, 149 Ga. 231, 99 S.E. 877 (1919).

General law may be repealed or modified by another general law, but it cannot be repealed or modified by special or local law. Cheatham v. Palmer, 176 Ga. 227, 167 S.E. 522 (1933).

No requirement of citing effect of legislation on judicial decisions.

- There is no constitutional nor statutory requirement that the legislature cite decisions of the court which may be changed, modified, or abrogated by legislative enactments. Davis v. State, 204 Ga. 467, 50 S.E.2d 604 (1948).

Cited in Wood v. City of Rome, 172 Ga. 696, 158 S.E. 585 (1931); Buie v. Buie, 175 Ga. 27, 165 S.E. 15 (1932); Terrell v. Forest Park Consol. Sch. Dist., 175 Ga. 88, 165 S.E. 122 (1932); National Fin. Co. v. Citizens Loan & Sav. Co., 184 Ga. 619, 192 S.E. 717 (1937); Shadrick v. Bledsoe, 186 Ga. 345, 198 S.E. 535 (1938); Pierce v. Powell, 188 Ga. 481, 4 S.E.2d 192 (1939); State Bd. of Educ. v. County Bd. of Educ., 190 Ga. 588, 10 S.E.2d 369 (1940); Morris v. City Council, 201 Ga. 666, 40 S.E.2d 710 (1946); Price v. State, 202 Ga. 205, 42 S.E.2d 728 (1947); Glustrom v. State, 206 Ga. 734, 58 S.E.2d 534 (1950); Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Floyd, 214 Ga. 232, 104 S.E.2d 208 (1958); Cavendar v. Evans, 218 Ga. 739, 130 S.E.2d 717 (1963); Burson v. Bishop, 117 Ga. App. 602, 161 S.E.2d 518 (1968); Pye v. State Hwy. Dep't, 226 Ga. 389, 175 S.E.2d 510 (1970); Mayson v. Davis, 227 Ga. 399, 181 S.E.2d 64 (1971); Perdue v. City Council, 137 Ga. App. 702, 225 S.E.2d 62 (1976); Osborne v. Ridge View Assocs., 238 Ga. 377, 233 S.E.2d 342 (1977); Pendigrass v. Edmonds, 247 Ga. 508, 277 S.E.2d 247 (1981); DOT v. Cochran, 160 Ga. App. 583, 287 S.E.2d 599 (1981); Teachers Retirement Sys. v. City of Atlanta, 249 Ga. 196, 288 S.E.2d 200 (1982).

Basic requirement of paragraph.

- All that this paragraph requires is that the Act amended or repealed should be identified in some other way than by mere reference to its title. Welborne v. State, 114 Ga. 793, 40 S.E. 857 (1902); Fountain v. Ragan-Malone Co., 141 Ga. 58, 80 S.E. 306 (1913) (see Ga. Const. 1983, Art. III, Sec. V, Para. IV).

Mere reference to the Code section to be affected is insufficient, and a reasonably clear and concise description of the subject matter of the affected statute is necessary. Mead Corp. v. Collins, 258 Ga. 239, 367 S.E.2d 790 (1988).

This paragraph is not complied with if only reference to law to be amended or repealed is its title or number of section. Ragans v. Ragans, 200 Ga. 890, 39 S.E.2d 162 (1946) (see Ga. Const. 1983, Art. III, Sec. V, Para. IV).

Title and date of approval of Act recited.

- Under this paragraph, an Act of the legislature can be amended or repealed by a recital of its title and the date of its approval. Adam v. Wright, 84 Ga. 720, 11 S.E. 893 (1890); Fullington v. Williams, 98 Ga. 807, 27 S.E. 183 (1896); Town of Maysville v. Smith, 132 Ga. 316, 64 S.E. 131 (1909); Holland v. State, 155 Ga. 795, 118 S.E. 203 (1923) (see Ga. Const. 1983, Art. III, Sec. V, Para. IV).

This paragraph requires only description, not transcription, and though the description must be distinct it need not be lengthy or extended. Newman v. State, 101 Ga. 534, 28 S.E. 1005 (1897); Cunningham v. State, 1 Ga. App. 697, 58 S.E. 23 (1907); Cunningham v. State, 128 Ga. 55, 57 S.E. 90 (1907); Ragans v. Ragans, 200 Ga. 890, 39 S.E.2d 162 (1946) (see Ga. Const. 1983, Art. III, Sec. V, Para. IV).

Paragraph satisfied when all on notice that certain Act is to be amended. Stembridge v. Newton, 213 Ga. 304, 99 S.E.2d 133 (1957) (see Ga. Const. 1983, Art. III, Sec. V, Para. IV).

Paragraph not violated where casual reading shows amended section.

- Where a most casual reading of the amendment will suffice to show precisely, and without the slightest danger of mistake, what section was to be amended, this paragraph is not violated. Ryle v. Wilkinson County, 104 Ga. 473, 30 S.E. 934 (1898) (see Ga. Const. 1983, Art. III, Sec. V, Para. IV).

Omission of date of approval immaterial where original Act is sufficiently described in the body of the amendment. Town of Maysville v. Smith, 132 Ga. 316, 64 S.E. 131 (1909); Tison v. City of Doerun, 155 Ga. 367, 116 S.E. 615 (1923).

Place of description.

- It is immaterial that the description did not precede, but followed, that portion of the amending Act which declared what the amendment should be. Fite v. Black, 85 Ga. 413, 11 S.E. 782 (1890); Georgia R.R. & Banking Co. v. George, 92 Ga. 760, 19 S.E. 813 (1894); Silvey & Co. v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 94 Ga. 609, 21 S.E. 607 (1894); Fullington v. Williams, 98 Ga. 807, 27 S.E. 183 (1896); Gilbert v. Georgia R.R. & Banking Co., 104 Ga. 412, 30 S.E. 673 (1898); Ryle v. Wilkinson County, 104 Ga. 473, 30 S.E. 934 (1898).

Entire amendment is construed together. Georgia R.R. & Banking Co. v. George, 92 Ga. 760, 19 S.E. 813 (1894); Gilbert v. Georgia R.R. & Banking Co., 104 Ga. 412, 30 S.E. 673 (1898).

Title as well as entire Act may be considered in determining whether Act violates this paragraph. Ragans v. Ragans, 200 Ga. 890, 39 S.E.2d 162 (1946) (see Ga. Const. 1983, Art. III, Sec. V, Para. IV).

Town charter amended by setting forth name and date thereof. Town of Poulan v. Atlantic Coast Line R.R., 123 Ga. 605, 51 S.E. 657 (1905); City of Cartersville v. McGinnis, 142 Ga. 71, 82 S.E. 487 (1914).

Omission of section of tax Act in succeeding Act is repeal.

- Where a section of the General Tax Act of 1927 exempting vendors of perishable farm products from payment of license fees or taxes (Ga. L. 1927, p. 56, former Code 1933, § 92-1602) was entirely omitted from the succeeding Tax Act of 1935 (Ga. L. 1935, p. 11), which Act covered the entire subject matter dealt with by the general Tax Act of 1927, the omission must be held to have been intentional and to have effected the repeal of the omitted provision in the previous Act. Fidelity Fruit & Produce Co. v. City of Atlanta, 183 Ga. 698, 189 S.E. 527 (1937).

O.C.G.A. § 40-5-58(d) not amendment to § 17-7-95. - O.C.G.A. § 40-5-58(d), dealing with the effect of a nolo contendere plea upon the punishment of an habitual traffic law violator, does not constitute an amendment to or repeal of O.C.G.A. § 17-7-95, dealing with the effect of a nolo contendere plea generally, within the meaning of this paragraph. Smith v. State, 248 Ga. 828, 286 S.E.2d 709 (1982) (see Ga. Const. 1983, Art. III, Sec. V, Para. IV).

Paragraph not violated by local Act fixing election and terms of certain officers. Collins v. Russell, 107 Ga. 423, 33 S.E. 444 (1899) (see Ga. Const. 1983, Art. III, Sec. V, Para. IV).

Paragraph not violated by amendment to town charter. Shippen Bros. Lumber Co. v. Elliott, 134 Ga. 699, 68 S.E. 509 (1910) (see Ga. Const. 1983, Art. III, Sec. V, Para. IV).

Paragraph not violated by Act changing terms of superior court. Burge v. Mangum, 134 Ga. 307, 67 S.E. 857 (1910) (see Ga. Const. 1983, Art. III, Sec. V, Para. IV).

Paragraph not violated by Act amending Workers' Compensation Law.

- Act adding a new paragraph (Ga. L. 1943, p. 401; see O.C.G.A. § 34-9-6) to the Code, which, among other things, provided that accidents to employees of departments which had been operating under the Workers' Compensation Law and had occurred prior to the passage of this Act would be treated as compensable accidents just as though the employee had been covered under workers' compensation, is not in violation of this paragraph. State Hwy. Dep't v. Bass, 197 Ga. 356, 29 S.E.2d 161 (1944) (see Ga. Const. 1983, Art. III, Sec. V, Para. IV).

Paragraph not violated by Act ceding jurisdiction to federal government.

- The 1927 Act of cession of jurisdiction (Ga. L. 1927, p. 352; see O.C.G.A. §§ 50-2-22 through50-2-24) is not an Act of repeal or amendment of prior Acts. It is a new and general statute by which the state makes a complete and general cession of jurisdiction to the federal government over all lands held by the United States for "purposes of government." Those sections are in nowise contrary to this paragraph. Bowen v. United States, 134 F.2d 845 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 319 U.S. 764, 63 S. Ct. 1320, 87 L. Ed. 1714 (1943) (see Ga. Const. 1983, Art. III, Sec. V, Para. IV).

Paragraph not violated by Act providing for bond validation.

- Former Code 1933, § 87-314 (Ga. L. 1939, p. 177), providing for the validation of bonds, does not violate this paragraph. Town of McIntyre v. Scott, 191 Ga. 473, 12 S.E.2d 883 (1940) (see Ga. Const. 1983, Art. III, Sec. V, Para. IV).

Paragraph not violated by Act providing for recovery for homicide of parent.

- The Act of 1924 as to recovery for homicide of parent (Ga. L. 1924, p. 60; see O.C.G.A. § 51-4-2) is not unconstitutional as being in violation of this paragraph. Peeler v. Central of Ga. Ry., 163 Ga. 784, 137 S.E. 24 (1927) (see Ga. Const. 1983, Art. III, Sec. V, Para. IV).

Paragraph not violated by Act providing for electrocutions.

- The Act of February 16, 1938 (Ga. L. Ex. Sess. 1937-1938, p. 330; see O.C.G.A. § 17-10-38), providing that electrocutions be carried out by the Board of Penal Administration (now Department of Offender Rehabilitation) is not unconstitutional as violative of this paragraph. Williams v. State, 187 Ga. 415, 1 S.E.2d 27 (1939) (see Ga. Const. 1983, Art. III, Sec. V, Para. IV).

Paragraph not violated by Act taxing business of selling malt beverages.

- So far as Ga. L. 1937-38, Ex. Sess., p. 175 (former Code 1933, § 58-739), purports to impose a tax upon the business of selling malt beverages, it does not profess to change or repeal any particular law or statute upon the subject, and it therefore is not within the prohibition of this paragraph. Crisp v. Head, 187 Ga. 20, 199 S.E. 219 (1938) (see Ga. Const. 1983, Art. III, Sec. V, Para. IV).

Paragraph not violated by State Bar Act.

- (Ga. L. 1963, p. 70; see O.C.G.A. Art. 2, Ch. 19, T. 15). Sams v. Olah, 225 Ga. 497, 169 S.E.2d 790 (1969), commented on in 21 Mercer L. Rev. 355 (1969).

Paragraph not violated by amendment to statute providing for administration of ward's estates.

- Statute, under which, upon the death of a ward, the guardian becomes the ward's administrator, does not violate this paragraph, since the 1958 amendment (Ga. L. 1958, p. 377) to that statute did not refer to former Code 1933, § 113-1202 (see now O.C.G.A. § 53-6-24), relating to selection of administrators by majority of heirs, or in any manner purport to amend or repeal it, and the 1958 amendment clearly stated the law to be amended and the nature of the alterations to be accomplished. Cavender v. Evans, 219 Ga. 449, 133 S.E.2d 856 (1963) (see Ga. Const. 1983, Art. III, Sec. V, Para. IV).

Paragraph not violated by local Act amending Act creating board of county commissioners. Stembridge v. Newton, 213 Ga. 304, 99 S.E.2d 133 (1957) (see Ga. Const. 1983, Art. III, Sec. V, Para. IV).

Paragraph not violated by local Act providing for assessments of street paving costs. City of Valdosta v. Harris, 156 Ga. 490, 119 S.E. 625 (1923) (see Ga. Const. 1983, Art. III, Sec. V, Para. IV).

Paragraph not violated by local Act amending Act incorporating school. English v. Smith, 162 Ga. 195, 133 S.E. 847 (1926) (see Ga. Const. 1983, Art. III, Sec. V, Para. IV).

Am. Jur. 2d.

- 73 Am. Jur. 2d, Statutes, § 259 et seq.

C.J.S.

- 82 C.J.S., Statutes, § 291 et seq.

ALR.

- Repeal of constitutional provision or amendment, 36 A.L.R. 1456.

Withdrawal by constitutional amendment or legislative Act of power under which political body acted in punishing act as crime, as affecting prior offenses, 89 A.L.R. 1514.

Effect of modification or repeal of constitutional or statutory provision adopted by reference in another provision, 168 A.L.R. 627.

Applicability of constitutional requirement that repealing or amendatory statute refer to statute repealed or amended, to repeal or amendment by implication, 5 A.L.R.2d 1270.