Editor's notes.

- In light of the similarity of the provisions, decisions under former Ga. Const. 1976, Art. VI, Sec. XII, Para. I and antecedent provisions, which empowered the General Assembly to authorize counties to supplement, out of county funds, the compensation and allowances of superior court judges and district attorneys, are included in the annotations for this paragraph. See Ga. Const. 1983, Art. VI, Sec. VIII, Para. I(c) for authorization for supplemental compensation for district attorneys.

Intent and purpose of this paragraph after fixing salaries of state officers, including district attorneys, in declaring: "with the right of the General Assembly to authorize any county to supplement the salary of a judge of the superior court and district attorney of the judicial circuit in which such county lies, out of county funds," is to require the concurrence of both the General Assembly and the county fiscal authorities in any salary supplement. Houlihan v. Ryan, 205 Ga. 734, 55 S.E.2d 243 (1949) (see Ga. Const. 1983, Art. VI, Sec. VII, Para. V).

Salary supplement authorized, not required.

- It clearly appears from the language that the General Assembly undertook only to authorize, and not to require, county commissioners to supplement the salary, to the extent provided for in the Act (Ga. L. 1949, p. 406), and further provided that, "if so fixed," it should be paid to the incumbent judge. Houlihan v. Atkinson, 205 Ga. 720, 55 S.E.2d 233 (1949).

Construing this paragraph as a whole and in connection with the constitutional amendment of 1927 (Ga. L. 1927, p. 111), the salary of the judge of the superior court of the Eastern Circuit was $6000.00, paid from the state treasury; $5000.00 paid under the constitutional amendment of 1927 from funds of the county, and the General Assembly has the right to authorize the county to further supplement the salary from county funds, just as was done by Ga. L. 1949, p. 406, and the county ordinance. That meaning of the Constitution is apparent from the latter part of this paragraph where it is provided that the board of commissioners or other authority having charge of the fiscal affairs of the county shall without further legislative action continue to supplement from the county's treasury the salary of the judge of the superior court of the circuit of which the county is a part, by the sum of $2000.00 per annum, which was in addition to the amount received by the judge from the state treasury, which payment was made to the judge then in office during the judge's term or subsequent term as well as to the judge's successor, with the authority in the General Assembly to increase such salary from the county treasury as provided. Houlihan v. Atkinson, 205 Ga. 720, 55 S.E.2d 233 (1949).

General Assembly may by legislation authorize counties to supplement salaries of judges without a constitutional amendment.

- While the valid local amendment of 1927 (Ga. L. 1927, p. 111) to the Constitution of 1877, brought forward as a part of the Constitution of 1945, could not be altered or repealed by a legislative Act, there is a specific right granted to the General Assembly by this paragraph to authorize, by legislative Act, counties which are already supplementing the salaries of judges under previous constitutional amendments to further supplement salaries of judges as provided, and there is also specifically granted to the General Assembly the right by legislative Act to authorize counties which have not heretofore supplemented salaries of such officers from county funds to do so without necessity of having to secure a constitutional amendment each time this is desired. This right and power the General Assembly did not possess prior to the authority conferred upon it by the Constitution of 1945. Houlihan v. Atkinson, 205 Ga. 720, 55 S.E.2d 233 (1949) (see Ga. Const. 1983, Art. VI, Sec. VII, Para. V).

Reduction of erroneously calculated salary proper.

- County was not barred from reducing a judge's salary when the salary had been inflated erroneously; the fact that the inflated salary was calculated by the same method as used previously did not estop the county from paying the reduced salary that the judge was actually due. Maddox v. Hayes, 278 Ga. 141, 598 S.E.2d 505 (2004).

Reduction of compensation during term authorized.

- Chief magistrate working less than full-time is not entitled to full-time salary. Poppell v. Gault, 278 Ga. 437 (2004).

Reduction of compensation during term not authorized.

- County commissioners violated the mandates of this paragraph and O.C.G.A. § 15-10-23 by reducing a magistrate's compensation during the elected term. Dudley v. Rowland, 271 Ga. 176, 517 S.E.2d 326 (1999) (see Ga. Const. 1983, Art. VI, Sec. VII, Para. V).

Validity of Act conferring authority on county commissioners to adopt ordinance supplementing district attorney's salary.

- Where the Act (Ga. L. 1949, p. 648) is mandatory, it unquestionably authorizes, and while the county commissioners are not under the terms of this paragraph compelled to obey, they may nevertheless choose to act voluntarily in accordance with the authority conferred by the legislative Act. Accordingly, the Act is valid, and has conferred authority upon the county commissioners to adopt the ordinance supplementing the salary of the district attorney. Houlihan v. Ryan, 205 Ga. 734, 55 S.E.2d 243 (1949).

Trial court did not err in holding Act constitutional.

- The trial court did not err in holding the Act of 1949 (Ga. L. 1949, p. 648) and the ordinance passed by the commissioners of the county under the authority granted, providing that the salary of the judge of the superior court of the Eastern Judicial Circuit be supplemented by $1000.00 per year from county funds as a court expense in addition to the salary provided for by the Constitution, were in all respects valid and constitutional; nor did it err in directing the county commissioners to make payment of such supplemental salary to the duly elected and qualified judge then in commission from and after the effective date of the ordinance. Houlihan v. Atkinson, 205 Ga. 720, 55 S.E.2d 233 (1949).

The right of the judge of the superior court to supplementary salary provided for in this paragraph is not contractual, but arises under the Constitution of this state; and therefore the statute of limitations as to matters of contract is not applicable thereto. Best v. Maddox, 185 Ga. 78, 194 S.E. 578 (1937) (see Ga. Const. 1983, Art. VI, Sec. VII, Para. V).

Remedy available to former judge to recover salary due.

- Mandamus is available at the instance of a former judge of the superior court to recover of the county treasurer salary alleged to be due the judge pursuant to this paragraph. Best v. Maddox, 185 Ga. 78, 194 S.E. 578 (1937) (see Ga. Const. 1983, Art. VI, Sec. VII, Para. V).

Retirement.

- The Georgia Constitution does not prohibit the award to elected judicial officers of creditable service for retirement purposes based upon accrued but unused annual leave and sick leave. Arneson v. Board of Trustees, 257 Ga. 579, 361 S.E.2d 805 (1987).

Reduction upon appointment to fill unexpired term.

- County board of commissioners violated this paragraph and O.C.G.A. § 15-10-23 in reducing the salary of a chief magistrate following the magistrate's appointment to fill the unexpired term of the predecessor. Lee v. Peach County Bd. of Comm'rs, 269 Ga. 380, 497 S.E.2d 562 (1998) (see Ga. Const. 1983, Art. VI, Sec. VII, Para. V).

Reduction of incumbent's compensation illegal.

- Chief magistrate was entitled to recover salary because the magistrate was an incumbent, having performed the duties of chief magistrate before the salary reduction, and defendants reduced the magistrate's salary in violation of Ga. Const. 1983, Art. VI, Sec.VII, Para. V, and O.C.G.A. § 15-10-23(d). Pike County v. Callaway-Ingram, 292 Ga. 828, 742 S.E.2d 471 (2013).

Failure to pay supplement that had been paid to predecessor.

- In a dispute between a county and a county state court judge over a supplement to the judge's salary, summary judgment for the judge was proper on the county's claim for reimbursement of the judge's salary supplement because the county failed to show that the supplement was paid with the total absence or want of power. Even if the supplement was paid in violation of the Open Meetings Act, O.C.G.A. § 50-14-1 et seq., the county's counterclaim was filed well outside the 90-day limitation period in O.C.G.A. § 50-14-1(b)(2). Heiskell v. Roberts, 342 Ga. App. 109, 802 S.E.2d 385 (2017).

Am. Jur. 2d.

- 46 Am. Jur. 2d, Judges, §§ 50 et seq., 57 et seq.

C.J.S.

- 48A C.J.S., Judges, § 189 et seq.