CHAPTER 1 GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec.

1-1-1. Enactment of Code.

The statutory portion of the codification of Georgia laws prepared by the Code Revision Commission and the Michie Company pursuant to a contract entered into on June 19, 1978, is enacted and shall have the effect of statutes enacted by the General Assembly of Georgia. The statutory portion of such codification shall be merged with annotations, captions, catchlines, history lines, editorial notes, cross-references, indices, title and chapter analyses, and other materials pursuant to the contract and shall be published by authority of the state pursuant to such contract and when so published shall be known and may be cited as the "Official Code of Georgia Annotated."

(Ga. L. 1982, p. 3, § 1.)

Cross references. - Powers and duties of Code Revision Commission regarding publication of Code, §§ 28-9-3 , 28-9-5 .

Effect of reenactment of the Code, § 28-9-5 .

Authorization to use state emblem on cover of official Code, § 50-3-8(b) .

Editor's notes. - For the Acts reenacting the Official Code of Georgia Annotated as amended by the text and numbering contained in the 1982 through 2018 supplements, see Ga. L. 1983, p. 3, § 1; Ga. L. 1984, p. 22, § 54; Ga. L. 1985, p. 149, § 54; Ga. L. 1986, p. 10, § 54; Ga. L. 1987, p. 3, § 54; Ga. L. 1988, p. 13, § 54; Ga. L. 1989, p. 14, § 54; Ga. L. 1990, p. 8, § 54; Ga. L. 1991, p. 94, § 54; Ga. L. 1992, p. 6, § 5; Ga. L. 1993, p. 91, § 54; Ga. L. 1994, p. 97, § 54; Ga. L. 1995, p. 10, § 54; Ga. L. 1996, p. 6, § 54; Ga. L. 1997, p. 143, § 54; Ga. L. 1998, p. 128, § 54; Ga. L. 1999, p. 81, § 54; Ga. L. 2000, p. 136, § 54; Ga. L. 2001, p. 4, § 54; Ga. L. 2002, p. 415, § 54; Ga. L. 2003, p. 140, § 54; Ga. L. 2004, p. 631, § 54; Ga. L. 2005, p. 60, § 54; Ga. L. 2006, p. 72, § 54; Ga. L. 2007, p. 47, § 54; Ga. L. 2008, p. 324, § 54; Ga. L. 2009, p. 8, § 54; Ga. L. 2010, p. 878, § 54; Ga. L. 2011, p. 752, § 54; Ga. L. 2012, p. 775, § 54, Ga. L. 2013, p. 141, § 54; Ga. L. 2014, p. 866, § 54; Ga. L. 2015, p. 5, § 54; Ga. L. 2016, p. 864, § 54/HB 737; Ga. L. 2017, p. 774, § 54/HB 323, and Ga. L. 2018, p. 1112, § 54/SB 365, respectively.

Law reviews. - For article, "Researching Georgia Law," see 9 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 585 (1993). For article, "Researching Georgia Law," see 34 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 741 (2015). For discussion of the work of the Code Revision Commission in making the Code, see 18 Ga. St. B.J. 102 (1982).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Official Code publication controls over unofficial compilation. - Attorneys who cite unofficial publication of 1981 Code do so at their peril; in any situation wherein defendant's compilation differs in any way from statutory provisions of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated as published by Michie (now Lexis-Nexis × ), it is the Michie publication which is controlling. Georgia ex rel. Gen. Ass'y v. Harrison Co., 548 F. Supp. 110 (N.D. Ga. 1982), orders vacated, 559 F. Supp. 37 (N.D. Ga. 1983).

Cited in Axson v. State, 174 Ga. App. 236 , 329 S.E.2d 566 (1985).

1-1-2. Legislative intent.

The enactment of this Code is intended as a recodification, revision, modernization, and reenactment of the general laws of the State of Georgia which are currently of force and is intended, where possible, to resolve conflicts which exist in the law and to repeal those laws which are obsolete as a result of the passage of time or other causes, which have been declared unconstitutional or invalid, or which have been superseded by the enactment of later laws. Except as otherwise specifically provided by particular provisions of this Code, the enactment of this Code by the General Assembly is not intended to alter the substantive law in existence on the effective date of this Code.

Cross references. - Effective date of Code, § 1-1-9 .

Law reviews. - For survey article on trial practice and procedure, see 34 Mercer L. Rev. 299 (1982).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Official Code publication controls over unofficial compilation. - Attorneys who cite unofficial publication of 1981 Code do so at their peril; in any situation wherein defendant's compilation differs in any way from statutory provisions of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated as published by Michie (now Lexis-Nexis/R), it is the Michie publication which is controlling. Georgia ex rel. Gen. Ass'y v. Harrison Co., 548 F. Supp. 110 (N.D. Ga. 1982), orders vacated, 559 F. Supp. 37 (N.D. Ga. 1983).

Alteration of substantive law not intended. - The primary purpose of the new codification was to rearrange the statutes as previously enacted by the General Assembly into a meaningful and cohesive order, a conclusion supported by language in this section that the Code "is not intended to alter the substantive laws in existence on the effective date of this Code." Georgia ex rel. Gen. Ass'y v. Harrison Co., 548 F. Supp. 110 (N.D. Ga. 1982), orders vacated, 559 F. Supp. 37 (N.D. Ga. 1983).

Sodomy statute not changed. - By the enactment of the Official Code of Georgia, the General Assembly did not intend to change the sodomy statute (O.C.G.A. § 16-6-2 ) to exclude as a crime the placing of one's mouth on the sexual organ of another. Porter v. State, 168 Ga. App. 703 , 309 S.E.2d 919 (1983).

Eminent domain notice statute not changed. - Placement of O.C.G.A. §§ 22-1-8 and 22-2-20 in different Code chapters did not, under the plain meaning of the sections and the operation of this section, extend coverage of O.C.G.A. § 22-2-20 (notice of condemnation in eminent domain provisions) to other than private property. DOT v. City of Atlanta, 255 Ga. 124 , 337 S.E.2d 327 (1985).

Shoplifting statute unchanged. - It was the intention of the legislature that the provisions now codified as paragraphs (1) and (2) of O.C.G.A. § 51-7-60 , governing detention of persons suspected of shoplifting, be read in the conjunctive, notwithstanding the use of the disjunctive in the present Code section because the Code revision committee's substitution of the word "or" for "or provided" between the paragraphs tends to give the statute a potentially irrational effect. K Mart Corp. v. Adamson, 192 Ga. App. 884 , 386 S.E.2d 680 (1989).

Cited in Jarmon v. Murphy, 164 Ga. App. 763 , 298 S.E.2d 510 (1982); Ketchum v. State, 167 Ga. App. 858 , 307 S.E.2d 742 (1983); Axson v. State, 174 Ga. App. 236 , 329 S.E.2d 566 (1985); Whaley v. State, 260 Ga. 384 , 393 S.E.2d 681 (1990); Kumar v. Hall, 262 Ga. 639 , 423 S.E.2d 653 (1992); Brophy v. McCranie, 264 Ga. 187 , 442 S.E.2d 230 (1994); Charter Medical Info. Servs., Inc. v. Collins, 266 Ga. 720 , 470 S.E.2d 655 (1996); Sheriff v. State, 277 Ga. 182 , 587 S.E.2d 27 (2003); Hardin v. NBC Universal, Inc., 283 Ga. 477 , 660 S.E.2d 374 (2008).

1-1-3. Severability.

Except as otherwise specifically provided in this Code or in an Act or resolution of the General Assembly, in the event any title, chapter, article, part, subpart, Code section, subsection, paragraph, subparagraph, item, sentence, clause, phrase, or word of this Code or of any Act or resolution of the General Assembly is declared or adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such declaration or adjudication shall not affect the remaining portions of this Code or of such Act or resolution, which shall remain of full force and effect as if such portion so declared or adjudged invalid or unconstitutional were not originally a part of this Code or of such Act or resolution. The General Assembly declares that it would have enacted the remaining parts of this Code if it had known that such portion hereof would be declared or adjudged invalid or unconstitutional. The General Assembly further declares that it would have enacted the remaining parts of any other Act or resolution if it had known that such portion thereof would be declared or adjudged invalid or unconstitutional unless such Act or resolution contains an express provision to the contrary.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Severability clause creates presumption of separability. - The presence of a severability clause in an Act reverses the usual presumption that the General Assembly intends the Act to be an entirety and creates an opposite presumption of separability. City Council v. Mangelly, 243 Ga. 358 , 254 S.E.2d 315 (1979).

Cited in Georgia Ass'n of Educators v. Harris, 749 F. Supp. 1110 (N.D. Ga. 1990); Jekyll Island-State Park Auth. v. Jekyll Island Citizens Ass'n, 266 Ga. 152 , 464 S.E.2d 808 (1996).

1-1-4. Validating Acts.

The omission from this Code of any Acts passed prior to the adoption of this Code which validated any bonds, notes, warrants, certificates, or other evidences of indebtedness issued by any political subdivision or instrumentality of the state shall in no way operate or be construed to repeal or destroy the effect of any and all of such validating Acts where such validating Acts have been otherwise lawfully passed and are not in conflict with the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of Georgia.

1-1-5. Effect of adoption of Code upon rules or regulations.

Unless otherwise provided, the adoption of this Code shall not invalidate or affect any rules or regulations which were in effect on November 1, 1982, promulgated pursuant to authority given by law, and such rules and regulations shall remain in force until repealed, replaced, or invalidated.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Three-minute rule remains unchanged. - Although the Official Code of Georgia Annotated (O.C.G.A.) specifically repealed the Code of 1933, the Rules of the Superior Court were not a part of that repealed code even though they "conveniently" appeared therein. The three-minute rule is one of long standing, originally promulgated pursuant to authority given by law and never specifically repealed by the General Assembly. As such, the three-minute rule remains viable and unchanged by the adoption of the O.C.G.A. Hinson v. Castellio, 168 Ga. App. 301 , 308 S.E.2d 705 (1983).

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Citations in traffic citation form. - Since there exists no requirement that there be citations to any Code sections on the Uniform Traffic Citation Form, the Code of Georgia of 1933 citations presently set forth on the form are mere surplusage; therefore, their removal or repeal by the new Code of Georgia Annotated will have no effect on the validity of the form. 1982 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 82-28.

1-1-6. Effect of adoption of Code upon terms of office and rights of officials or employees.

  1. The adoption of this Code shall not affect the term of office or the right to hold office of any person who is in office on November 1, 1982, unless otherwise expressly provided or unless such office is abolished by the adoption of this Code.
  2. The adoption of this Code shall not affect the compensation, expenses, per diem, allowances, retirement, or other rights of any official or employee of the state or any county, municipal corporation, school system, political subdivision, authority, or other governmental entity within this state, unless otherwise provided in this Code.

1-1-7. Notes and catchlines of Code sections not part of law.

Unless otherwise provided in this Code, the descriptive headings or catchlines immediately preceding or within the text of the individual Code sections of this Code, except the Code section numbers included in the headings or catchlines immediately preceding the text of the Code sections, and title and chapter analyses do not constitute part of the law and shall in no manner limit or expand the construction of any Code section. All historical citations, title and chapter analyses, and notes set out in this Code are given for the purpose of convenient reference and do not constitute part of the law.

(Ga. L. 1982, p. 3, § 1.)

Cross references. - Section captions in Title 11 as constituting part of that title, § 11-1-109 .

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Cited in Hogan v. State, 178 Ga. App. 534 , 343 S.E.2d 770 (1986); Brown v. Earp, 261 Ga. 522 , 407 S.E.2d 737 (1991); South v. Bank of Am., 250 Ga. App. 747 , 551 S.E.2d 55 (2001).

1-1-8. References to state law or this Code.

  1. Unless otherwise indicated in the context, references in this Code to titles, chapters, articles, parts, subparts, or Code sections shall mean titles, chapters, articles, parts, subparts, or Code sections of this Code.
  2. Unless there is an expressed intention to the contrary, any reference in this Code or in any law of this state to another provision of this Code or law of this state shall mean and be construed to refer to such other provision or law as it now or hereafter exists.
  3. Any reference in any local or special law of this state to any Act or resolution of the General Assembly or to any title, chapter, section, or other portion of any prior code of this state shall be construed to be a reference to the appropriate title, chapter, article, part, subpart, Code section, subsection, paragraph, subparagraph, division, or subdivision of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated.
  4. Unless otherwise indicated by the context in which it is used, any citation in any public or private document, writing, or other instrument to a law of the State of Georgia which has been codified in the Official Code of Georgia Annotated shall be construed to be a reference to such law as contained in the Official Code of Georgia Annotated.
  5. Any reference in any Act of the General Assembly or in any other public or private document, writing, or other instrument to "O.C.G.A." shall mean and refer to the Official Code of Georgia Annotated published under authority of the State of Georgia. The Official Code of Georgia Annotated published under authority of the State of Georgia may be cited or referred to as "O.C.G.A."

    (Ga. L. 1981, Ex. Sess., p. 8, § 6; Ga. L. 1982, p. 3, § 1; Ga. L. 1983, p. 3, § 2.)

1-1-9. Effective date of Code.

This Code shall become effective on November 1, 1982.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Editor's notes. - In light of the similarity of the statutory provisions, annotations decided under former Code 1863, § 2 are included in the annotations for this Code section.

Driving while license revoked under former Code provision. - Where a driver was declared a habitual violator by the Department of Public Safety under the provisions of former Code 1933, § 68B-308(a), then was convicted for operating a motor vehicle while the driver's license was still revoked pursuant to that action, after the Official Code of Georgia Annotated became effective on November 1, 1982, the revocation of the driver's license was effective "under this Code section" within the meaning of O.C.G.A. § 40-5-58(c) , and the driver can be sentenced to a five-year confinement pursuant to that section. Ketchum v. State, 167 Ga. App. 858 , 307 S.E.2d 742 (1983).

Effect of adopting the Code was to enact into one statute all of the sections of the Code. Barnes v. Carter, 120 Ga. 895 , 48 S.E. 387 (1904); Atkinson v. Swords, 11 Ga. App. 167 , 74 S.E. 1093 (1912). See also Central of Ga. Ry. v. State, 104 Ga. 831 , 31 S.E. 531 , 42 L.R.A. 518 (1898); Thornton v. State, 5 Ga. App. 397 , 63 S.E. 301 (1908).

Adoption, not the compilation, is the legislative Act. Western & A.R.R. v. Young, 83 Ga. 512 , 10 S.E. 197 (1889).

Errors were not adopted. City of Atlanta v. Gate City Gas Light Co., 71 Ga. 106 (1883); Bailey v. McAlpin, 122 Ga. 616 , 50 S.E. 388 (1905).

If Act embodied in Code, title immaterial. - If an Act has been embodied in the Code and becomes a part of the law of this state upon the adoption of the Code, the contents of the title of the original Act are immaterial. Huff v. Markham, 70 Ga. 284 (1883); Central of Ga. Ry. v. State, 104 Ga. 831 , 31 S.E. 531 , 42 L.R.A. 518 (1898); Kennedy v. Meara, 127 Ga. 68 , 56 S.E. 243 , 9 Ann. Cas. 396 (1906).

Rulings on statute applicable to Code. - Rulings are all as applicable to the Code as to the statute on which they were made, for the Code is not substantially different from the statute. Wall v. Jones, 62 Ga. 725 (1879).

Omissions considered repeals. - Where provision of the Code treats the entire subject matter, what is omitted is repealed. Shumate v. Williams, 34 Ga. 245 (1866); Georgia R.R. & Banking Co. v. Wynn, 42 Ga. 331 (1871); Miller v. Southwestern R.R., 55 Ga. 143 (1875).

Valid statute erroneously omitted still in force. - A valid statute of this state in existence at the date of the adoption of the Code, but omitted therefrom through oversight or mistake, is still in force unless expressly or by necessary implication repealed by a subsequent statute or some provision of the Code. Georgia R.R. & Banking v. Wright, 124 Ga. 596 , 53 S.E. 251 , aff'd, 125 Ga. 589 , 54 S.E. 52 (1906), rev'd on other grounds, 207 U.S. 127, 28 S. Ct. 47 , 52 L. Ed. 134 (1907); Hicks v. Moyer, 10 Ga. App. 488 , 73 S.E. 754 (1912); Farley v. State, 12 Ga. App. 643 , 77 S.E. 1131 (1913); Wiggins v. State, 17 Ga. App. 748 , 88 S.E. 411 (1916).

Where part of a statute omitted may be restored without inconsistency, there is no repeal. Daniel v. Jackson, 53 Ga. 87 (1874).

Act relating to costs on discharge before magistrate remains valid. - The 1811 Act relating to costs on discharge before the magistrate, though not embodied in the Code, not being inconsistent with any of the provisions thereof, is still of force. Gault v. Wallis, 53 Ga. 675 (1875).

Discrepancies reconciled by court. - Because the subjects of the Code were written by different men, it is the duty of the court to reconcile discrepancies. Greer v. Haugabook, 47 Ga. 282 (1872). See also Gillis v. Gillis, 96 Ga. 1 , 23 S.E. 107 , 51 Am. St. R. 121 , 30 L.R.A. 143 (1895).

Section not retroactive. - The Code is intended to apply to future contracts, and this section does not have a retroactive operation. Bass v. Ware, 34 Ga. 386 (1866); Bryan v. Doolittle, 38 Ga. 255 (1868); Napier v. Jones, 45 Ga. 520 (1872); Gholston v. Gholston, 54 Ga. 285 (1875).

Sale by executor under will made prior to Code valid. - Where the will of a testator who died prior to the adoption of the Code created a general power of sale in his executors for certain purposes named, a private sale was valid though not made until after the Code was adopted. Smith v. Hulsey, 62 Ga. 341 (1879).

Certain decisions made before the adoption of the Code are not now law. Adams v. Barlow, 69 Ga. 302 (1882).

Cited in Eaves v. J.C. Bradford & Co., 173 Ga. App. 470 , 326 S.E.2d 830 (1985).

1-1-10. Specific repealer; provisions saved from repeal.

  1. The following Codes, laws, and parts of laws are repealed, except as otherwise provided in this Code section:
    1. The Code of Georgia of 1933, as amended;
    2. All general laws enacted by the General Assembly of Georgia prior to June 1, 1981, except this Code and except as otherwise provided in this Code section; and
    3. All codes enacted or approved by the General Assembly prior to the Code of Georgia of 1933.
  2. The following laws and parts of laws are not repealed by the adoption of this Code and shall remain of full force and effect until otherwise repealed, amended, superseded, or declared invalid or unconstitutional:
    1. Acts and resolutions conveying, granting, leasing, encumbering, selling, exchanging, or authorizing easements in specific state-owned property or rights therein;
    2. Acts and resolutions providing for appropriations of state funds;
    3. Acts and resolutions granting compensation to persons, firms, partnerships, corporations, and private or governmental entities injured by the state or its officials, officers, employees, or agents;
    4. Local Acts and resolutions of the General Assembly which are in effect on November 1, 1982, and which are not in conflict with this Code;
    5. Acts and resolutions which by their terms are applicable to a named superior court or judicial circuit, including but not limited to Acts fixing the terms of court and Acts providing for judges, district attorneys, or other personnel or their compensation, powers, or duties;
    6. Resolutions proposing amendments to the Constitution or proposing a new Constitution or portions thereof;
    7. Acts and resolutions ceding jurisdiction over territory within the state to the federal government;
    8. Acts and resolutions creating committees or commissions of the General Assembly or authorizing studies;
    9. Acts and resolutions providing for the furnishing of law books to various courts, governmental entities, libraries, and public officials;
    10. Acts and resolutions designating or naming highways, bridges, buildings, ferries, dams, structures, parks, natural resources, or other property or authorizing the placement of statues, plaques, memorials, portraits, or monuments;
    11. Resolutions relating to or providing for the internal operation of the General Assembly;
    12. Resolutions not intended to have the force and effect of law;
    13. General Acts of local application which are based on population and which have not been specifically repealed or declared invalid or unconstitutional;
    14. Acts and resolutions honoring, commending, or recognizing individuals, groups, principles, or ideas or urging that certain acts be done or refrained from by the federal, state, or local governments or by individuals, groups, or entities; and
    15. Acts and resolutions relieving sureties or bondsmen.
  3. The following specific laws and parts of laws are not repealed by the adoption of this Code and shall remain of full force and effect, pursuant to their terms, until otherwise repealed, amended, superseded, or declared invalid or unconstitutional:
    1. An Act for reviving and enforcing certain laws therein mentioned and adopting the common laws of England as they existed on May 14, 1776, approved February 25, 1784. (For the adopting Act of 1784, see Prince's 1822 Digest, p. 570; Cobb's 1851 Digest, p. 721; and Code of 1863, Section 1, paragraph 6.)
    2. Section 10 of an Act amending an Act prohibiting certain practices in connection with real estate transactions, approved March 24, 1981 (Ga. L. 1981, p. 480).
    3. Section 13 of an Act known as the "Georgia Marketing Act of 1981," approved April 13, 1981 (Ga. L. 1981, p. 1354).
    4. Sections 1 and 67 of an Act to revise, modernize, codify, and update certain laws relating to alcoholic beverages, approved April 13, 1981 (Ga. L. 1981, p. 1269).
    5. Section 4 of an Act amending an Act known as the "Insurance Premium Finance Company Act," approved April 7, 1981 (Ga. L. 1981, p. 760).
    6. Sections 5 and 6 of an Act amending Code Title 56, known as the "Georgia Insurance Code," so as to provide additional qualifications for licensure of agents and counselors for life or accident and sickness insurance and for the making of annuity contracts, approved April 17, 1981 (Ga. L. 1981, p. 1789).
    7. Section 1 of an Act prohibiting discrimination in the employment of the handicapped and known as the "Georgia Equal Employment for the Handicapped Code," approved April 17, 1981 (Ga. L. 1981, p. 1803).
    8. Section 3 of an Act amending Code Section 56-3005, relating to optional policy provisions in accident and sickness policies, so as to remove the provisions relating to insurance with other insurers, approved April 9, 1981 (Ga. L. 1981, p. 1009).
    9. Section 4 of an Act amending Code Title 114, relating to workers' compensation, so as to redefine the term "employee," approved April 17, 1981 (Ga. L. 1981, p. 1585).
    10. Section 3 of an Act amending Code Title 56, known as the "Georgia Insurance Code," so as to require that certain accident and sickness policies and plans provide conversion privileges for insured surviving spouses or former spouses, approved April 7, 1981 (Ga. L. 1981, p. 640).
    11. Section 2 of an Act amending Code Section 3-305, relating to suits against representatives of obligors, so as to reduce the period of exemption from suit for representatives of estates from 12 months to six months, approved April 9, 1981 (Ga. L. 1981, p. 852).
    12. An Act providing that the State of Georgia shall be a party to the "Southern Interstate Nuclear Compact," approved March 3, 1962, (Ga. L. 1962, p. 505), as amended.
    13. A resolution creating the Georgia Semiquincentenary Commission, approved April 14, 1981 (Ga. L. 1981, p. 1472).
    14. Section 1 of an Act authorizing the Supreme Court of Georgia to establish a uniform motion for review procedure, approved March 20, 1980 (Ga. L. 1980, p. 390).
    15. Section 2 of an Act providing for distribution of certain moneys received or to be received as a result of the commission of a crime, approved April 17, 1979 (Ga. L. 1979, p. 1262).
    16. Section 4 of an Act amending certain provisions relating to trial and accusation and waiver of indictment, approved March 20, 1980 (Ga. L. 1980, p. 452).
    17. Section 4 of an Act providing for an additional credit to be given to criminal defendants who are confined in an institution or facility for treatment or examination of a physical or mental disability, approved April 3, 1972 (Ga. L. 1972, p. 742).
    18. Sections 14 and 15 of an Act providing for representation by counsel, services, and facilities for indigent persons in criminal proceedings, approved April 18, 1968 (Ga. L. 1968, p. 999).
    19. Section 13 of an Act to provide defense services for indigent persons accused of crime, approved March 9, 1979 (Ga. L. 1979, p. 367).
    20. A resolution approving the adoption of the rules of the Supreme Court, approved April 14, 1981 (Ga. L. 1981, p. 1532).
    21. Section 7 of an Act creating a new judicial circuit for this state to be known as the Douglas Judicial Circuit, approved March 20, 1980 (Ga. L. 1980, p. 563).
    22. Section 38-612 of the Code of 1933, relating to Acts allowing papers improperly registered, and their copies, when lost, to be admitted in evidence.
    23. Section 3 of an Act providing for the incorporation by reference of various fiduciary powers into wills, trusts, or other instruments in writing and providing that no exercise of any such power or authority by a fiduciary shall deprive the trust or estate involved of an otherwise available tax exemption, approved April 17, 1973 (Ga. L. 1973, p. 846).
    24. Section 3 of an Act amending an Act providing for the incorporation by reference of various fiduciary powers into wills, trusts, and other instruments in writing, approved April 17, 1973 (Ga. L. 1973, p. 846), and providing that the Act shall not apply to any will, trust, or other instrument executed prior to April 7, 1976, approved April 7, 1976 (Ga. L. 1976, p. 1586).
    25. Section 2 of an Act providing that mutual wills, other than mutual wills based on express contract, must contain an express statement that such wills are mutual wills, approved April 18, 1967 (Ga. L. 1967, p. 718).
    26. Sections 4 through 9 of an Act to provide for the number of witnesses required to attest wills and codicils and to provide for the execution and probate of wills and codicils, approved May 28, 1964 (Ga. L. 1964, Ex. Sess., p. 16).
    27. Section 2 of an Act providing a residuary bequest or devise to a surviving widow in lieu of dower or years support shall be subject to debts, taxes, expenses of administration and similar charges, approved April 8, 1968 (Ga. L. 1968, p. 1070).
    28. Section 2 of an Act changing from six months to nine months the time period within which a written instrument of renunciation must be filed, approved April 17, 1979 (Ga. L. 1979, p. 1292).
    29. Section 2 of an Act providing additional procedures for taking the testimony of witnesses for wills, approved March 24, 1976 (Ga. L. 1976, p. 640).
    30. Section 2 of an Act providing how guardians, administrators, executors, trustees, and other fiduciaries may sell stocks or bonds, approved March 2, 1953 (Ga. L. 1953, Jan.-Feb. Sess., p. 378).
    31. Section 15 of an Act providing for the supervision by the Attorney General of the administration of charitable trusts, approved March 21, 1974 (Ga. L. 1974, p. 440).
    32. Section 6 of an Act prescribing procedure for appeals upon petition to the Supreme Court or Court of Appeals in certain specified cases shall not apply to appeals in certain habeas corpus cases, approved April 12, 1979 (Ga. L. 1979, p. 619).
    33. Section 1 of an Act to be known as the "Georgia Public Revenue Code" and revising and modernizing certain revenue laws and to provide legislative intent, approved March 6, 1978 (Ga. L. 1978, p. 309).
    34. Section 13 of an Act creating the Department of Offender Rehabilitation and the Board of Offender Rehabilitation and abolishing the State Board of Probation, approved April 6, 1972 (Ga. L. 1972, p. 1069).
    35. Section 3 of an Act prohibiting any interference with the printing of the reports of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals, approved March 29, 1937 (Ga. L. 1937, p. 503).
    36. Section 7 of an Act providing that the powers and duties of the Department of Administrative Services relative to contracts for supplies and services required by the state shall not be construed to affect, repeal, or limit an Act known as the "Unemployment Compensation Law," approved April 12, 1979 (Ga. L. 1979, p. 659).
    37. Section 2 of an Act providing that the provisions regarding membership of certain metropolitan area planning and development commissions shall not be changed, approved April 6, 1978 (Ga. L. 1978, p. 2066).
    38. Section 2 of an Act providing that certain additional authority granted to each area planning and development commission and the expiration of such authority shall not repeal, limit, or diminish any power heretofore possessed by any metropolitan area planning and development commission, approved March 23, 1977 (Ga. L. 1977, p. 782).
    39. Section 5 of an Act providing that certain functions and authority granted to area planning and development commissions shall be cumulative of any authority provided to certain metropolitan area planning and development commissions and shall not diminish any authority heretofore granted to any such commission, approved April 11, 1978 (Ga. L. 1978, p. 2293).
    40. Section 2 of an Act reestablishing the Georgia Council for the Arts and Humanities, approved March 13, 1979 (Ga. L. 1979, p. 388).
    41. Section 9 of an Act substantially amending the duties, responsibilities and procedures of the Public Service Commission, approved April 14, 1975 (Ga. L. 1975, p. 404).
    42. Section 7 of an Act amending the powers and duties of the State Depository Board and the regulation of deposits therein, approved March 23, 1960 (Ga. L. 1960, p. 1144).
    43. Section 11 of the "Telecommunications Consolidation Act of 1973," approved April 18, 1973 (Ga. L. 1973, p. 1261).
    44. Section 9 of the "Public Safety Radio Services Act of 1975," approved April 28, 1975 (Ga. L. 1975, p. 1642).
    45. Section 2 of an Act amending an Act implementing the requirements of the Federal Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1968, approved March 20, 1980 (Ga. L. 1980, p. 736).
    46. Section 2 of an Act providing that powers of sale and other powers in deeds of trust, mortgages, and other instruments may be exercised by transferees and other parties regardless of whether or not the transfer specifically includes such powers or conveys title to the property described, approved April 18, 1967 (Ga. L. 1967, p. 735).
    47. Section 4 of an Act providing that a power of sale, unless limited in the instrument creating such power, authorizes a private sale by the donee of such power, except as to instruments given to secure a debt, approved March 4, 1955 (Ga. L. 1955, p. 430).
    48. An Act requiring the conditional sales of personal property to be evidenced in writing, approved September 27, 1881 (Ga. L. 1880-81, p. 143), as amended.
    49. An Act to provide that the lien of mortgages on crops given to secure the payment of debts for supplies, money, and other articles of necessity shall be superior to judgments of older date than the mortgages, approved December 21, 1899 (Ga. L. 1899, p. 78).
    50. An Act to extend the lien of mortgages on crops, before the crops are planted or growing, approved July 15, 1924 (Ga. L. 1924, p. 125).
    51. Sections 2 and 3 of an Act declaring that growing crops shall be personalty and providing that mortgages or other liens thereof shall be attested and recorded as chattel mortgages, approved August 21, 1922 (Ga. L. 1922, p. 114).
    52. An Act authorizing the securing of advances made for the purpose of planting, making, or gathering crops by giving a bill of sale, approved August 22, 1925 (Ga. L. 1925, p. 118), as amended.
    53. An Act declaring the selling or encumbering of personal property held under a conditional purchase to be illegal, approved September 28, 1883 (Ga. L. 1882-83, p. 111).
    54. An Act to prevent the removal of personal property from this state held under a conditional purchase and sale, and by the terms of the purchase, the title is retained by the vendor until the purchase price is paid, without the consent of the vendor, and to prevent the vendee in such a purchase and sale from concealing the property, approved August 15, 1910 (Ga. L. 1910, p. 120).
    55. An Act to be known as the "Apartment Ownership Act," approved April 12, 1963 (Ga. L. 1963, p. 561), as amended.
    56. An Act to create the positions of associate public service commissioners, approved February 18, 1953 (Ga. L. 1953, Jan.-Feb. Sess., p. 127).
    57. An Act to declare valid and legal the establishment and organization of housing authorities and all bonds, notes, contracts, agreements, obligations, and undertakings of such authorities, approved March 23, 1939 (Ga. L. 1939, p. 126).
    58. An Act to validate and declare legal all notes and bonds of housing authorities, and all civil proceedings, acts, and things heretofore undertaken, performed, or done with reference thereto, approved March 15, 1971 (Ga. L. 1971, p. 94).
    59. An Act to validate and declare legal the creation and establishment of housing authorities and all bonds, notes, contracts, agreements, obligations, and undertakings of such authorities, approved February 14, 1951 (Ga. L. 1951, p. 127).
    60. An Act to validate and declare legal the creation and establishment of housing authorities and all bonds, notes, contracts, agreements, obligations, and undertakings of such authorities, approved March 10, 1959 (Ga. L. 1959, p. 141).
    61. An Act to validate and declare legal the creation and establishment of housing authorities and all bonds, contracts, agreements, notes, obligations, and undertakings of such authorities, approved March 9, 1962 (Ga. L. 1962, p. 734).
    62. Section 1 of an Act to provide for the number of directors of railroad corporations, and to provide for the ratification of prior actions of boards of directors thereof, approved April 23, 1969 (Ga. L. 1969, p. 589).
    63. An Act to provide that the seal of a notary need not be required to his attestation of deeds and to provide for the ratification of certain deeds, approved February 12, 1952 (Ga. L. 1952, p. 456).
    64. An Act to create certain emeritus offices of the state, to provide for appointment, compensation, and duties, as amended, approved March 7, 1957 (Ga. L. 1957, p. 206).
    65. A resolution giving assent of this state to an act of Congress of the United States providing for cooperative agricultural extension work, approved August 14, 1914 (Ga. L. 1914, p. 1243).
    66. An Act to enlarge the powers of the Board of Trustees of Georgia Military College, approved March 24, 1939 (Ga. L. 1939, p. 410).
    67. An Act to authorize the Toccoa Falls Institute to confer the degree of bachelor of arts in biblical education, approved March 24, 1939 (Ga. L. 1939, p. 412).
    68. An Act designating Fort Valley State College as a land-grant college, approved February 25, 1949 (Ga. L. 1949, p. 1144).
    69. An Act known as the "Georgia Professional Standards Act," approved March 25, 1976 (Ga. L. 1976, p. 966).
    70. An Act known as the "State School Building Authority for the Deaf and Blind Act," approved February 21, 1951 (Ga. L. 1951, p. 637).
    71. An Act known as the "Vocational Trade School Building Authority Act," approved February 16, 1951 (Ga. L. 1951, p. 132).
    72. Section 2 of an Act to amend Code Title 49, relating to guardians and wards, as amended, so as to enact Chapter 9 of Title 49 and to provide that a guardian need not be appointed for a minor or an incompetent person in certain instances, approved April 18, 1967 (Ga. L. 1967, p. 720).
    73. Section 3 of an Act to amend Code Title 49, relating to guardians and wards, as amended, so as to revise, modernize, and supersede Code Chapter 49-6, relating to guardians of insane persons or persons otherwise mentally incapable of managing their estates, approved April 8, 1980 (Ga. L. 1980, p. 1661).
    74. Section 5 of an Act substantially revising the law relating to the joint-secretary of the state examining boards, as amended, in particular to provide an exception, approved April 22, 1981 (Ga. L. 1981, p. 1898).
    75. Section 3 of an Act to amend Code Title 74, relating to parent and child, as amended, by enacting a new Code chapter relating to determination of paternity, approved April 1, 1980 (Ga. L. 1980, p. 1374).
    76. Section 7 of the "Georgia Child Custody Intrastate Jurisdiction Act of 1978," approved April 5, 1978 (Ga. L. 1978, p. 1957).
    77. Sections 1 and 49 of an Act substantially revising and modernizing certain laws of this state relating to family, domestic relations, and interfamilial duties, approved April 4, 1979 (Ga. L. 1979, p. 466).
    78. Sections 29 and 30 of the "Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act," approved February 20, 1958 (Ga. L. 1958, p. 34). (Code 1981, § 1-1-10 ; Ga. L. 1992, p. 6, § 1.)

Code Commission notes. - Ga. L. 1981, p. 3, effective April 1, 1982, and Ga. L. 1982, p. 2107, effective November 1, 1982, repealed and codified numerous general Acts of local application. See Index to Local and Special Laws and General Laws of Local Application, contained in Volume 42 of this Code.

Editor's notes. - This Code section was created as part of the Code revision and was thus enacted by Ga. L. 1981, Ex. Sess., p. 8, (Code Enactment Act).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Editor's notes. - In light of the similarity of the statutory provisions, decisions under former Code 1933, § 102-101, which adopted the Code of Georgia of 1933, are included in the annotations for this section.

Three-minute rule remains unchanged. - Although the Official Code of Georgia Annotated (O.C.G.A.) specifically repealed the Code of 1933, the Rules of the Superior Court were not a part of that repealed code even though they "conveniently" appeared therein. The three-minute rule is one of long standing, originally promulgated pursuant to authority given by law and never specifically repealed by the General Assembly. As such, the three-minute rule remains viable and unchanged by the adoption of the O.C.G.A. Hinson v. Castellio, 168 Ga. App. 301 , 308 S.E.2d 705 (1983).

Statutory offense of failing to pay for agricultural products repealed. - The enactment of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated repealed the statute governing the offense of failing to pay for agricultural products, and thus, absent a saving provision, the prosecution for such an offense which had not reached final judgment was properly dismissed. State v. Fordham, 172 Ga. App. 853 , 324 S.E.2d 796 (1984).

Effect of Code's adoption - was to enact into one statute all provisions embraced in Code. Head v. Browning, 215 Ga. 263 , 109 S.E.2d 798 (1959).

The legislative Act in adopting the 1933 Code had the force and effect of enacting into one statute all the provisions in that Code. Atlanta & W.P.R.R. v. Wise, 190 Ga. 254 , 9 S.E.2d 63 (1940).

Legislative intention. - Just as is the rule in construing statutes, where a section is plain, unambiguous, and positive, and is not capable of two constructions, the court is not authorized to construe it according to what is supposed to be the intention of the General Assembly. Atlanta & W.P.R.R. v. Wise, 190 Ga. 254 , 9 S.E.2d 63 (1940).

Section normally states existing law. - While it is true that the adoption by the General Assembly of the Code of 1933 amounted to a reenactment of each section thereof as contemporary statutes, it is also true that in construing the meaning of an ambiguous section, the original Act will be looked to in order to determine the true interpretation of the section; and in such an interpretation of an ambiguous section having the force of a statute, unless the contrary manifestly appears from the words employed, the language of such section should be construed as intending to state the previously existing law, and not to change it. State v. Camp, 189 Ga. 209 , 6 S.E.2d 299 (1939).

Unless contrary manifestly appears from words employed, section should be understood as stating existing law, and not changing it. Maddox v. First Nat'l Bank, 191 Ga. 106 , 11 S.E.2d 662 (1940).

Where, by the language of the section itself, its context, and by reason of the expressed subject matter under which it is grouped, it becomes proper and necessary to determine the true intent of the legislative body, it will be construed in the light of the source from which it came, to the extent that the language of the section itself may be compatible with such a construction; in such a case, where the section has been codified from a decision of the Supreme Court or of the Court of Appeals, the section will be construed, insofar as is compatible with its terms, so as to conform to the then existing law, rather than to change the rule in force at the time the Code was adopted. Atlanta & W.P.R.R. v. Wise, 190 Ga. 254 , 9 S.E.2d 63 (1940).

Where an intention to change appears, it must be given effect, not because of any power of legislation vested in the codifiers or the commission, but because of the adopting statute. Maddox v. First Nat'l Bank, 191 Ga. 106 , 11 S.E.2d 662 (1940).

Proposed change must be conspicuous so as to demand inference that it was noticed by the lawmaking body before the presumption against a change may be overthrown. Maddox v. First Nat'l Bank, 191 Ga. 106 , 11 S.E.2d 662 (1940).

Related sections should be construed to harmonize each other. - The adoption of the Code of 1933 amounted to a reenactment of each section as contemporary statutes of the state, and each section should be dealt with as though it were contained in the same Act of the General Assembly and should be construed as if it was a separate paragraph of the same statute. Therefore, sections relating to the same subject matter and codified at the same time should be construed, if possible, to harmonize with each other, and that construction should be adopted which will prevent a contradiction by one section of the other, so that both will be operative. Grand Trunk W.R.R. v. Barge, 75 Ga. App. 646 , 44 S.E.2d 281 (1947).

Sections in irreconcilable conflict. - Where two sections of the Code are found to be in irreconcilable conflict, and both sections are derived from Acts of the General Assembly, this conflict must be settled by resort to the original Acts from which the conflicting sections are derived, and that section which is derived from the later Act of the General Assembly must control. Thomas v. Hudson, 190 Ga. 622 , 10 S.E.2d 396 (1940).

Sovereign immunity now a matter of constitutional law. - Although sovereign immunity and official immunity under common law was given constitutional status, Ga. Const. 1983, Art. I, Sec. II, Para. IX, it was the common law doctrines that were given constitutional status, and courts no longer have authority to abrogate or modify the doctrines. Lathrop v. Deal, 301 Ga. 408 , 801 S.E.2d 867 (2017).

Cited in Davis v. State, 172 Ga. App. 893 , 325 S.E.2d 926 (1984); Ballard v. Frey, 179 Ga. App. 455 , 346 S.E.2d 893 (1986); Devins v. Leafmore Forest Condominium Ass'n, 200 Ga. App. 158 , 407 S.E.2d 76 (1991); Denhardt v. 7 Bay Traders LLC, 296 Ga. App. 122 , 673 S.E.2d 621 (2009).

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Sections not codified in Official Code deemed repealed. - Neither former Code 1933, § 69-9904 nor Code 1933, Ch. 69-12 was codified in the new Official Code of Georgia Annotated; therefore, they are deemed repealed. 1983 Op. Att'y Gen. No. U83-15.

Citations in traffic citation form. - Since there exists no requirement that there be citations to any Code sections on the Uniform Traffic Citation Form, the Code of Georgia of 1933 citations presently set forth on the form are mere surplusage; therefore, their removal or repeal by the new Code of Georgia Annotated will have no effect on the validity of the form. 1982 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 82-28.

1-1-11. General repealer.

All laws and parts of laws in conflict with this Code are repealed.

CHAPTER 2 PERSONS AND THEIR RIGHTS

Sec.

Cross references. - Duty of General Assembly to enact laws to protect rights, privileges, and immunities due citizens of state, Ga. Const. 1983, Art. I, Sec. I, Para. VII.

Editor's notes. - By resolution (Ga. L. 1986, p. 529), the General Assembly designated the English language as the official language of the State of Georgia.

Law reviews. - For annual survey of trial practice and procedure, see 56 Mercer L. Rev. 433 (2004).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

ALR. - Disloyalty or mental reservation as ground for cancellation of certificate of citizenship, 18 A.L.R. 1185 .

Right of alien to reenter after temporary absence, 57 A.L.R. 1131 .

Effect of marriage of alien woman to one then an American citizen on right to enter or remain in this country, 71 A.L.R. 1213 .

Suits and remedies against alien enemies, 137 A.L.R. 1361 ; 147 A.L.R. 1309 ; 148 A.L.R. 1386 ; 149 A.L.R. 1454 ; 152 A.L.R. 1451 ; 153 A.L.R. 1418 ; 155 A.L.R. 1451 ; 156 A.L.R. 1448 ; 157 A.L.R. 1449 .

Right of alien enemy to take by inheritance or by will, 147 A.L.R. 1297 ; 148 A.L.R. 1384 ; 149 A.L.R. 1451 ; 150 A.L.R. 1418 ; 152 A.L.R. 1450 .

Effect of war on litigation pending at the time of its outbreak, 147 A.L.R. 1298 ; 148 A.L.R. 1384 ; 149 A.L.R. 1452 ; 150 A.L.R. 1418 ; 154 A.L.R. 1447 .

Domicile or residence of person in the armed forces, 152 A.L.R. 1471 ; 153 A.L.R. 1442 ; 155 A.L.R. 1466 ; 156 A.L.R. 1465 ; 157 A.L.R. 1462 ; 158 A.L.R. 1474 .

Validity, construction, and effect of provisions in life or accident policy in relation to military service, 36 A.L.R.2d 1018.

Recovery of damages as remedy for wrongful discrimination under state or local civil rights provisions, 85 A.L.R.3d 351.

1-2-1. Classes of persons generally; corporations deemed artificial persons; nature of corporations generally.

  1. There are two classes of persons: natural and artificial.
  2. Corporations are artificial persons. They are creatures of the law and, except insofar as the law forbids it, they are subject to be changed, modified, or destroyed at the will of their creator.

    (Orig. Code 1863, § 1582; Code 1868, § 1645; Code 1873, § 1651; Code 1882, § 1651; Civil Code 1895, § 1802; Civil Code 1910, § 2159; Code 1933, § 79-101.)

Cross references. - Definition of "person" generally, § 1-3-3 .

Law reviews. - For survey article on business associations, see 34 Mercer L. Rev. 13 (1982). For article, "Rights: Afterthoughts," see 27 Ga. L. Rev. 473 (1993). For survey article discussing developments in law of business associations for the period from June 1, 1999 through May 31, 2000, see 52 Mercer L. Rev. 95 (2000).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Section becomes, in substance, a part of the charter of a corporation. Railroad Co. v. Georgia, 98 U.S. 359, 25 L. Ed. 185 (1878).

Corporation is a creature of the law. Eminent Household of Columbian Woodmen v. Thornton, 134 Ga. 405 , 67 S.E. 849 (1910).

Corporation brought into existence only as result of express legislation. - The conference of power upon persons to organize a corporation is legislative in character and must be done by direct legislation, or be founded upon legislative or constitutional provisions. Free Gift Soc'y No. 25 Bros. & Sisters of Benevolence v. Edwards, 163 Ga. 857 , 137 S.E. 382 (1927).

State Board of Workers' Compensation agency of state. - The State Board of Workmen's Compensation (now State Board of Workers' Compensation) is not a natural person, partnership or corporation, but an agency of the state. The state has not consented for this agency to be sued and a suit cannot be maintained against the state without its consent. Cardin v. Riegel Textile Corp., 219 Ga. 695 , 135 S.E.2d 284 (1964).

Averment in indictment that representations were made to corporation is sufficient, for this is a representation to a person, although an artificial one. Turnipseed v. State, 53 Ga. App. 194 , 185 S.E. 403 (1936).

In 1863 Code, state for first time asserted its right to change, modify, or alter. Barnett v. D.O. Martin Co., 191 Ga. 11 , 11 S.E.2d 210 (1940).

Power to change, modify, destroy is referred to as reserved power of state. Barnett v. D.O. Martin Co., 191 Ga. 11 , 11 S.E.2d 210 (1940).

Sovereign power never committed to court, but vested in state itself. - The sovereign power to alter, modify, or repeal charters is vested in the state itself, and has never been committed to the superior court. Barnett v. D.O. Martin Co., 191 Ga. 11 , 11 S.E.2d 210 (1940).

Corporation of this state cannot be dissolved by act of Congress. Holland v. Heyman & Bro., 60 Ga. 174 (1878).

Where power reserved, corporations may be authorized to merge or consolidate. - Where the reserved power existed at the time of their creation, the General Assembly may authorize preexisting corporations to merge or consolidate upon the affirmative vote of less than all of the stockholders. Barnett v. D.O. Martin Co., 191 Ga. 11 , 11 S.E.2d 210 (1940).

Section is broader than former Code 1910, § 2239, which pertains to withdrawal of franchise. Central R.R. & Banking Co. v. State, 54 Ga. 401 (1875), rev'd on other grounds, 92 U.S. 665, 23 L. Ed. 757 (1876).

State has right to withdraw any privilege which is part of corporation's franchise. Railroad Co. v. Georgia, 98 U.S. 359, 25 L. Ed. 185 (1878).

Right to withdraw franchise must authorize a withdrawal of every or any right or privilege which is a part of the franchise, especially in view of this statutory provision that private corporations are subject to be changed, modified, or destroyed at the will of their creator. Barnett v. D.O. Martin Co., 191 Ga. 11 , 11 S.E.2d 210 (1940).

Corporation's power differs from state's power. - There is a substantial difference between a corporation's attempting to reserve right to impair vested rights of its shareholders through altering or amending its internal structure and retention by state of power to modify or withdraw charters granted to corporations created by the state. Baugh v. Citizens & S. Nat'l Bank, 248 Ga. 180 , 281 S.E.2d 531 (1981).

Under this section, railroad corporation may be confined to particular route on certain prescribed conditions, as to a portion of a line through a given county. Macon & B.R.R. v. Gibson, 85 Ga. 1 , 11 S.E. 442 , 21 Am. St. R. 135 (1890).

Cited in Georgia Power Co. v. City of Decatur, 181 Ga. 187 , 182 S.E. 32 (1935).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur. 2d. - 18 Am. Jur. 2d, Corporations, §§ 65 et seq.

C.J.S. - 18 C.J.S., Corporations, § 8.

ALR. - Diversity of citizenship, for purposes of federal jurisdiction, in stockholders' derivative action, 68 A.L.R.2d 824.

Right of member, officer, agent, or director of private corporation or unincorporated association to assert personal privilege against self-incrimination with respect to production of corporate books or records, 52 A.L.R.3d 636; 87 A.L.R. Fed. 177.

Availability of sole shareholder's Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination to resist production of corporation's books and records--modern status, 87 A.L.R. Fed. 177.

Punitive damages in actions for violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 USCA § 1981a; 42 USCA § 2000e et seq.), 150 A.L.R. Fed. 601.

1-2-2. Categories of natural persons.

Natural persons are categorized, according to their rights and status, as:

  1. Citizens;
  2. Citizens of the United States but not of this state; and
  3. Aliens.

    (Orig. Code 1863, § 1583; Code 1868, § 1646; Code 1873, § 1652; Code 1882, § 1652; Civil Code 1895, § 1803; Civil Code 1910, § 2160.)

Law reviews. - For article, "Compulsory Legal Segregation in the Public Schools, with Special Reference to Georgia," see 5 Mercer L. Rev. 211 (1954). For article, "Rights: Afterthoughts," see 27 Ga. L. Rev. 473 (1993).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Editor's notes. - In light of the similarity of the statutory provisions, annotations decided under former Code 1933, § 79-209, which dealt with citizenship rights of insane persons, are included in the annotations for this Code section.

Section is broad enough to cover resident and nonresident persons who are non compos mentis. Shea v. Gehan, 70 Ga. App. 229 , 28 S.E.2d 181 (1943).

Referring to section in determining legislative intention in other provisions. - Former Code 1933, § 79-102 (see now O.C.G.A. § 1-2-2 ) may be referred to in determining the intention of the General Assembly in using the phrase "mentally incompetent" in former Code 1933, § 114-306 (see now O.C.G.A. § 34-9-86 ), or "non compos mentis" in § 1-3-3 . Royal Indem. Co. v. Agnew, 66 Ga. App. 377 , 18 S.E.2d 57 (1941).

"Insane" persons defined. - The Code defines "insane" persons, or persons "non compos mentis," or persons "mentally incompetent," as meaning persons with unsoundness of mind in many degrees, such condition of mind being of three degrees: (1) one who is so unsound as to be sent to an asylum; (2) another so unsound as to have a guardian of the person's property and of the person; and (3) another so unsound as to have a guardian only of the person's property, to see that it is not wasted (that is, a trustee). Royal Indem. Co. v. Agnew, 66 Ga. App. 377 , 18 S.E.2d 57 (1941).

Editor's notes. - In light of the similarity of the statutory provisions, opinions rendered under former Code 1933, § 79-201 are included in the annotations for this Code section.

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Undomiciled married woman may register to vote. - A married woman whose husband has his legal residence in Georgia may register to vote in this state even though she is not physically domiciled within the state. 1975 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 75-77 (rendered under former Code 1933, § 79-201).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur. 2d. - 3A Am. Jur. 2d, Aliens and Citizens, §§ 5 et seq., 284 et seq., 862 et seq., 961 et seq. 3B Am. Jur. 2d, Aliens and Citizens, §§ 1170 et seq., 1823 et seq. 3C Am. Jur. 2d, Aliens and Citizens, § 2086 et seq.

C.J.S. - 3 C.J.S., Aliens, §§ 4, 5, 7. 14 C.J.S., Citizens, §§ 1, 2.

ALR. - Disloyalty or mental reservation as ground for cancellation of certificate of citizenship, 18 A.L.R. 1185 .

Showing as to mental condition which will entitle one restrained on ground of insanity to release, 19 A.L.R. 715 .

Acquisition of domicile in countries (such as China, Turkey, and Egypt) granting extraterritorial privileges to foreigners, 39 A.L.R. 1155 .

Diversity of citizenship, for purposes of federal jurisdiction, in stockholders' derivative action, 68 A.L.R.2d 824.

Capacity of one who is mentally incompetent but not so adjudicated to sue in his own name, 71 A.L.R.2d 1247.

1-2-3. Duration of citizenship.

Until citizenship is acquired elsewhere, a citizen of this state continues to be a citizen of this state and of the United States.

(Orig. Code 1863, § 54; Code 1868, § 50; Code 1873, § 47; Code 1882, § 47; Civil Code 1895, § 1806; Civil Code 1910, § 2163; Code 1933, § 79-202.)

Cross references. - Determination of venue in proceedings against corporations, § 14-2-510 .

Determination of domicile of persons, T. 19, C. 2.

Determination of residence for purposes of voter registration, § 21-2-217 .

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Forum non conveniens dismissal of FELA case. - Because a trial court lacks discretion to dismiss a Federal Employers' Liability Act case on the ground of forum non conveniens, the trial court correctly denied the railroad's motion to dismiss the case on such grounds. Southern Ry. v. Goodman, 259 Ga. 339 , 380 S.E.2d 460 (1989).

Cited in Brown v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R., 229 Ga. 481 , 192 S.E.2d 382 (1972); Southern Ry. v. Goodman, 259 Ga. 339 , 380 S.E.2d 460 (1989).

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Change of residence. - Loss of citizenship does not result from change of residence not intended to be permanent. 1958-59 Op. Att'y Gen. p. 92.

1-2-4. Right of expatriation.

Except in time of war, every citizen of this state shall have the right of expatriation with a view to becoming a citizen of another country with which this state is at peace. Declaration or avowal of the intention to become a citizen of another country, accompanied by actual removal, shall be held to be a renunciation of all one's rights and duties as a citizen.

(Orig. Code 1863, § 53; Code 1868, § 49; Code 1873, § 46; Code 1882, § 46; Civil Code 1895, § 1805; Civil Code 1910, § 2162; Code 1933, § 79-203.)

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur. 2d. - 3B Am. Jur. 2d, Aliens and Citizens, § 1823 et seq. 3C Am. Jur. 2d, Aliens and Citizens, § 2086 et seq.

C.J.S. - 14 C.J.S., Citizens, § 18 et seq.

1-2-5. Reacquisition of citizenship by expatriated persons and descendants.

If a person expatriated under Code Section 1-2-4 acquires citizenship under some foreign power, he and his descendants who go with him for the purpose of residence may become citizens of this state again only after meeting the residence requirements and taking the oath of allegiance required of other foreigners as a condition to becoming a citizen of the United States by Section 1448 of Title 8 of the United States Code.

(Orig. Code 1863, § 55; Code 1868, § 51; Code 1873, § 48; Code 1882, § 48; Civil Code 1895, § 1807; Civil Code 1910, § 2164; Code 1933, § 79-204.)

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur. 2d. - 3B Am. Jur. 2d, Aliens and Citizens, § 1823 et seq. 3C Am. Jur. 2d, Aliens and Citizens, § 2086 et seq.

C.J.S. - 3A C.J.S., Aliens, § 1233.

1-2-6. Rights of citizens generally.

  1. The rights of citizens include, without limitation, the following:
    1. The right of personal security;
    2. The right of personal liberty;
    3. The right of private property and the disposition thereof;
    4. The right of the elective franchise;
    5. The right to hold office, unless disqualified by the Constitution and laws of this state;
    6. The right to appeal to the courts;
    7. The right to testify as a witness;
    8. The right to perform any civil function; and
    9. The right to keep and bear arms.
  2. All citizens are entitled to exercise all their rights as citizens, unless specially prohibited by law.

    (Orig. Code 1863, §§ 1585, 1586; Code 1868, §§ 1648, 1649; Code 1873, §§ 1654, 1655; Code 1882, §§ 1654, 1655; Civil Code 1895, §§ 1808, 1809; Civil Code 1910, §§ 2165, 2166; Code 1933, §§ 79-205, 79-206.)

Law reviews. - For article, "Disability Constitutional Law," see 63 Emory L. J. 527 (2014).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

ANALYSIS

General Consideration

State empowered to deny any citizen any right. - One who is a citizen does not necessarily have the right to exercise all the rights exercised by any citizen. It is within the power of the state, by proper methods, to deny to any citizen any right. But that denial must be made by the proper authority. White v. Clements, 39 Ga. 232 (1869).

Naturalized citizen stands upon the same footing as other citizens, and the naturalized citizen has all the rights anybody has - unless it is otherwise specially provided by law. White v. Clements, 39 Ga. 232 (1869).

Rights of each race are controlled and governed by same enactments or principles of law. Smith v. Dubose, 78 Ga. 413 , 3 S.E. 309 , 6 Am. St. R. 260 (1887).

Mentally and physically disabled person found competent. - Though a victim of sexual assault was mentally and physically disabled, a trial court did not abuse the court's discretion in determining that the victim was competent to testify against the defendant at the defendant's criminal trial because the trial court held a competency hearing and found that the victim understood the victim's responsibility to tell the truth and clearly knew what had happened, who had done it, and so communicated those facts, despite the victim's mental and physical disabilities. Wilson v. State, 270 Ga. App. 311 , 605 S.E.2d 921 (2004).

Impact of pardon of sex offender. - Sex offender registration requirements were held to be a legal disability and are removed by the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles' order granting a pardon and removing all disabilities. State v. Davis, 303 Ga. 684 , 814 S.E.2d 701 (2018).

Cited in Overton v. Gandy, 170 Ga. 562 , 153 S.E. 520 (1930); Caldwell v. Hill, 179 Ga. 417 , 176 S.E. 381 (1934); Patten v. Miller, 190 Ga. 123 , 8 S.E.2d 757 (1940); Irwin v. Busbee, 241 Ga. 567 , 247 S.E.2d 103 (1978); Hughley v. City of Thomaston, 180 Ga. App. 207 , 348 S.E.2d 570 (1986); McIntyre v. Miller, 263 Ga. 578 , 436 S.E.2d 2 (1993); Handel v. Powell, 284 Ga. 550 , 670 S.E.2d 62 (2008); Spillers v. State, 299 Ga. App. 854 , 683 S.E.2d 903 (2009).

Personal Property

Person of color has the right to a prescriptive title by adverse possession. Beatty v. Benton, 135 U.S. 244, 10 S. Ct. 747 , 34 L. Ed. 124 (1890).

Elective Franchise

Party primary not within statutory and constitutional protection. - A party primary held under the provisions of former Code 1933, § 34-3212, merely chooses candidates or nominees of a political party to be submitted to the entire electorate in the general election, and is not an "election" within the meaning of that term as used in the statutory and constitutional provisions of Georgia conferring upon its citizens the right to vote in an election; the right to participate in such a primary does not come within the protection of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the federal Constitution. Cox v. Peters, 208 Ga. 498 , 67 S.E.2d 579 (1951), appeal dismissed, 342 U.S. 936, 72 S. Ct. 559 , 96 L. Ed. 697 (1952) (decided prior to enactment of O.C.G.A. §§ 21-2-71 and 21-2-152 ).

Right to Hold Office

Right to hold office is one of rights of citizen of this state which is provided by both statute and Constitution. White v. Clements, 39 Ga. 232 (1869).

Right of citizen to hold office is general rule, ineligibility the exception; a citizen may not be deprived of this right without proof of some disqualification specifically declared by law. McLendon v. Everett, 205 Ga. 713 , 55 S.E.2d 119 (1949).

Negroes may hold office. - By the Constitution of 1868, the rights of the Negro are the same as the rights of the white man. The Constitution did not make race or color a disqualification for office and, as Negroes are citizens under this section, it follows that they may hold office. White v. Clements, 39 Ga. 232 (1869).

Courts

No general right of access. - In a suit challenging a court's electronic filing fee system, the trial court did not err when the court granted the motion to dismiss the plaintiff's claims under Ga. Const. 1983, Art. I, Sec. I, Para. XII and O.C.G.A. § 1-2-6(a)(6) because Ga. Const. 1983, Art. I, Sec. I, Para. XII was never intended to provide a right of access to the courts and the Georgia Supreme Court has established that there is no express constitutional right of access to the courts under the Georgia Constitution. Best Jewelry Mfg. Co. v. Reed Elsevier Inc., 334 Ga. App. 826 , 780 S.E.2d 689 (2015), cert. denied, No. S16C0502, 2016 Ga. LEXIS 286 (Ga. 2016).

Forum non conveniens doctrine in federal tort cases. - The privileges and immunities clause of the United States Constitution prohibits Georgia courts from applying the doctrine of forum non conveniens to citizens of other states who are nonresidents of Georgia in federal tort cases and declining to exercise jurisdiction of such suits brought by them. Brown v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R., 229 Ga. 481 , 192 S.E.2d 382 (1972).

Because a trial court lacks discretion to dismiss a Federal Employers' Liability Act case on the ground of forum non conveniens, the trial court correctly denied the railroad's motion to dismiss the case on such grounds. Southern Ry. v. Goodman, 259 Ga. 339 , 380 S.E.2d 460 (1989).

Section does not change the common law right of one spouse to sue the other. Holman v. Holman, 73 Ga. App. 205 , 35 S.E.2d 923 (1945).

Action for interference with right to testify. - An action for the recovery of damages for interference with the right to testify as a witness is one "for injuries to the person" and must be commenced within two years of the alleged interference. Carter v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R., 392 F. Supp. 494 (S.D. Ga. 1974).

Witness

Right to testify protected by Constitution. - The right to testify as a witness is a personal right and is an adjunct or portion of the fundamental concept of freedom and liberty protected by the Georgia Constitution. Carter v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R., 392 F. Supp. 494 (S.D. Ga. 1974).

Right to testify neither unlimited or constitutionally fundamental. - O.C.G.A. § 1-2-6 creates a statutory right to testify as a witness that is neither unlimited nor constitutionally fundamental. Ambles v. State, 259 Ga. 406 , 383 S.E.2d 555 (1989).

Georgia witness competency statutes present a reasonable requirement regarding the minimal level of understanding for people participating in one of the most important functions of government and do not violate the equal protection clause. Ambles v. State, 259 Ga. 406 , 383 S.E.2d 555 (1989).

State had standing to challenge Georgia witness competency statutes. Ambles v. State, 259 Ga. 406 , 383 S.E.2d 555 (1989).

Subornation of perjury as an invasion of privacy. - Evidence that a fellow employee attempted to require an employee to lie at a deposition hearing with reference to a lawsuit then in progress involving the employer interfered with the latter employee's right to testify as a witness and supported an action against that fellow employee for trespass upon the right to privacy. Troy v. Interfinancial, Inc., 171 Ga. App. 763 , 320 S.E.2d 872 (1984).

Persons of color are competent witnesses in all cases. Clarke v. State, 35 Ga. 75 (1866).

Exercise of Rights

All citizens are entitled to exercise all their rights, unless prohibited by law. White v. Clements, 39 Ga. 232 (1869).

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Citizen has right to hold office as general rule, ineligibility being the exception, and a citizen may not be deprived of this right without proof of some disqualifications specifically declared by law. 1979 Op. Att'y Gen. No. U79-24.

Disqualification for holding office strictly construed. - The right to hold office unless disqualified by the Constitution and laws is one of the rights of Georgia citizens, and any purported disqualification for holding office must be strictly construed and any ambiguity resolved in favor of the citizen's right to run for and hold office. 1975 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 75-18.

City's residency requirements. - The time during which an individual resided in an area prior to its annexation to a city is creditable towards the residency requirements for mayor and city councilman of that city. 1978 Op. Att'y Gen. No. U78-42.

Public office not barred by liquor conviction. - A conviction of the crime of "having liquor" does not render a person disqualified from holding public office under the laws of this state. 1967 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 67-26.

Blindness alone not a bar to holding office of sheriff. - A person otherwise possessing the qualifications to hold the office of sheriff, as specified by former Code 1933, § 24-2801 (see now O.C.G.A. § 15-16-1 ), may not be barred from such office because the person is blind. 1980 Op. Att'y Gen. No. U80-1.

One person may hold offices of city and probate court judge. - There is no prohibition against one person's holding both the offices of judge of a city court and ordinary of a county (now probate court judge). 1970 Op. Att'y Gen. No. U70-60.

Councilperson keeps office after moving different ward. - Where a councilperson is elected from a particular ward, but by the voters of the entire city, the councilperson is not required to forfeit one's office if one moves to a different ward in the same city. 1975 Op. Att'y Gen. No. U75-39.

Deputy sheriff is not required to resign the deputy's office prior to running for sheriff. 1979 Op. Att'y Gen. No. U79-24.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur. 2d. - 15 Am. Jur. 2d, Civil Rights, § 1 et seq. 16A Am. Jur. 2d, Constitutional Law, §§ 607, 608. 16B Am. Jur. 2d, Constitutional Law, §§ 628, 629.

C.J.S. - 14 C.J.S., Civil Rights, §§ 2, 3. 16A C.J.S., Constitutional Law, §§ et seq., 699 et seq., 721 et seq., 839 et seq., 855 et seq. 16C C.J.S., Constitutional Law, § 1495 et seq., 1610 et seq., 1812 et seq., 1883 et seq. 16D C.J.S., Constitutional Law, §§ 1909 et seq., 2026 et seq., 2410 et seq.

ALR. - What businesses or establishments fall within state civil rights statute provisions prohibiting discrimination, 87 A.L.R.2d 120.

Residential swimming pool as nuisance, 49 A.L.R.3d 545.

Validity of statute imposing durational residency requirements for divorce applicants, 57 A.L.R.3d 221.

Sufficiency of courtroom facilities as affecting rights of accused, 85 A.L.R.3d 918.

Zoning: building in course of construction as establishing valid nonconforming use or vested right to complete construction for intended use, 89 A.L.R.3d 1051.

Propriety of awarding custody of child to parent residing or intending to reside in foreign country, 20 A.L.R.4th 677.

Requirement that court advise accused of, and make inquiry with respect to, waiver of right to testify, 72 A.L.R.5th 403.

When is intervention as matter of right appropriate under Rule 24(a)(2) of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in civil rights action, 132 A.L.R. Fed. 147.

1-2-7. Rights of female citizens generally.

Female citizens are entitled to the privilege of the elective franchise and have the right to hold any civil office or perform any civil function as fully and completely as do male citizens.

(Orig. Code 1863, § 1587; Code 1868, § 1650; Code 1873, § 1656; Code 1882, § 1656; Civil Code 1895, § 1810; Ga. L. 1896, p. 40, § 1; Civil Code 1910, § 2167; Ga. L. 1912, p. 62, § 1; Ga. L. 1916, p. 43, § 1; Ga. L. 1918, p. 118, § 1; Ga. L. 1921, p. 106, §§ 1, 2; Code 1933, § 79-207; Ga. L. 1975, p. 779, § 2; Ga. L. 1982, p. 3, § 1; Ga. L. 1982, p. 826, § 1; Ga. L. 1984, p. 22, § 1.)

History of section. - The language of this section is derived in part from the decision in Ex parte Hale, 145 Ga. 350 , 89 S.E. 216 (1916).

Cross references. - Sex discrimination in employment, T. 34, C. 5.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

All qualified, nonexempt women have right to jury duty. - It is the law's intent that all women who are qualified for jury duty, and who are not exempt from jury duty under law, shall have the right to and the responsibility of jury duty in accordance with the provisions of Georgia law. Mann v. Cox, 487 F. Supp. 147 (S.D. Ga. 1979).

Cited in Curtis v. Ashworth, 165 Ga. 782 , 142 S.E. 111 , 59 A.L.R. 1457 (1928); Reece v. State, 208 Ga. 165 , 66 S.E.2d 133 (1951).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur. 2d. - 16B Am. Jur. 2d, Constitutional Law, § 877 et seq.

C.J.S. - 14A C.J.S., Civil Rights, § 172 et seq.

ALR. - Validity of testamentary trust to promote women's rights, 28 A.L.R. 720 .

1-2-8. Rights of minors.

The law prescribes certain ages at which persons shall be considered of sufficient maturity to discharge certain civil functions, to make contracts, and to dispose of property. Prior to those ages they are minors and are, on account of that disability, unable to exercise these rights as citizens unless such minor becomes emancipated by operation of law or pursuant to Article 10 of Chapter 11 of Title 15.

(Orig. Code 1863, § 1588; Code 1868, § 1651; Code 1873, § 1657; Code 1882, § 1657; Civil Code 1895, § 1811; Civil Code 1910, § 2168; Code 1933, § 79-208; Ga. L. 2006, p. 141, § 2/HB 847; Ga. L. 2013, p. 294, § 4-1/HB 242.)

Cross references. - Capacity of minors to enter into contracts, § 13-3-20 .

Capacity of minors to apply for, receive, and repay educational loans, § 20-3-287 .

Age of majority, § 39-1-1 .

Editor's notes. - Ga. L. 2013, p. 294, § 5-1/HB 242, not codified by the General Assembly, provides that: "This Act shall become effective on January 1, 2014, and shall apply to all offenses which occur and juvenile proceedings commenced on and after such date. Any offense occurring before January 1, 2014, shall be governed by the statute in effect at the time of such offense and shall be considered a prior adjudication for the purpose of imposing a disposition that provides for a different penalty for subsequent adjudications, of whatever class, pursuant to this Act. The enactment of this Act shall not affect any prosecutions for acts occurring before January 1, 2014, and shall not act as an abatement of any such prosecutions."

Law reviews. - For article recommending more consistency in age requirements of laws pertaining to the welfare of minors, see 6 Ga. St. B. J. 189 (1969). For article on 2006 amendment of this Code section, see 23 Ga. St. U. L. Rev. 79 (2006).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Workers' compensation provisions operate uniformly upon all minors who are employed under such circumstances as to come under the provisions, who are 18 years of age or over, and who are not mentally incompetent or physically incapable of earning a livelihood. Rourke v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co., 187 Ga. 636 , 1 S.E.2d 728 (1939).

Infants are citizens, and yet they are denied by the law many civil rights; they cannot contract or make wills. White v. Clements, 39 Ga. 232 (1869); Howard v. Tucker, 65 Ga. 323 (1880).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur. 2d. - 16B Am. Jur. 2d, Constitutional Law, § 642.

C.J.S. - 43 C.J.S., Infants, § 220 et seq.

ALR. - Rights of mortgagee or conditional vendor under a mortgage or conditional sale contract executed by an infant, against the property covered in the hands of a third person to whom it has been conveyed or transferred by the infant, 69 A.L.R. 1371 .

Effect of infant's disaffirmance of purchase-money mortgage or judgment, 77 A.L.R. 987 .

Minor's entry into home of parent as sufficient to sustain burglary charge, 17 A.L.R.5th 111.

1-2-9. Rights of citizens of the United States while in this state generally.

Such citizens of the other states of the Union as are recognized as citizens of the United States by the Constitution thereof shall be entitled, while temporarily within this state, to all the rights of citizens thereof, except the elective franchise, the right to hold office, and the right to perform such civil functions as are confined by law to citizens of this state.

(Laws 1785, Cobb's 1851 Digest, p. 364; Code 1863, § 1591; Code 1868, § 1654; Code 1873, § 1659; Code 1882, § 1659; Civil Code 1895, § 1813; Civil Code 1910, § 2170; Code 1933, § 79-301.)

Cross references. - Determination of resident status of university students for tuition or fee purposes, § 20-3-66 .

Determination of residence for purpose of voter registration, § 21-2-217 .

License requirements for motor vehicles of nonresidents, § 40-2-90 et seq.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Right of persons in this state other than citizens are fixed by former Civil Code 1910, § 2170 (see now O.C.G.A. § 1-2-7 ) and former Civil Code 1910, §§ 2171, 2173 (see now O.C.G.A. § 1-2-11 ). Silver v. State, 147 Ga. 162 , 93 S.E. 145 (1917).

Right which citizens of state acquire for taking and cultivation of fish is property right and is not a mere privilege or immunity of citizenship. Silver v. State, 147 Ga. 162 , 93 S.E. 145 (1917).

Cited in McLendon v. Everett, 205 Ga. 713 , 55 S.E.2d 119 (1949); J. Bain, Inc. v. Poulos, 121 Ga. App. 647 , 175 S.E.2d 86 (1970); Kennedy v. Ga. Dep't of Human Res. Child Support Enforcement, 286 Ga. App. 222 , 648 S.E.2d 727 (2007).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur. 2d. - 25 Am. Jur. 2d, Domicil, §§ 2, 7 et seq.

C.J.S. - 14 C.J.S., Citizens, §§ 3 et seq., 28, 29. 28 C.J.S., Domicile, §§ 3, 4, 11.

ALR. - Validity of testamentary trust to promote women's rights, 28 A.L.R. 720 .

What businesses or establishments fall within state civil rights statute provisions prohibiting discrimination, 87 A.L.R.2d 120.

1-2-10. Rights of citizens of other states or nations to sue or give evidence.

The citizens of other states of the United States or of foreign states at peace with this state shall, by comity, be allowed the privilege of suing in the courts of this state and of giving evidence therein, as long as the same comity is extended in the courts of the other states to the citizens of this state.

(Orig. Code 1863, § 1595; Code 1868, § 1657; Code 1873, § 1662; Code 1882, § 1662; Civil Code 1895, § 1817; Civil Code 1910, § 2174; Code 1933, § 79-305.)

Law reviews. - For annual survey of administrative law, see 56 Mercer L. Rev. 31 (2004).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

O.C.G.A. § 1-2-10 applies to citizens of foreign countries who are residing within the United States but does not extend to nonresident aliens. AT&T Corp. v. Sigala, 274 Ga. 137 , 549 S.E.2d 373 (2001).

O.C.G.A. §§ 1-2-10 and 1-2-11 , regarding the rights of citizens of other nations to sue in Georgia, apply to citizens of foreign countries who are residing within the United States and do not extend to nonresident aliens. Gonzalez v. DOT, 279 Ga. 230 , 610 S.E.2d 527 (2005).

Cited in Southern Ry. v. Parker, 194 Ga. 94 , 21 S.E.2d 94 (1942); J. Bain, Inc. v. Poulos, 121 Ga. App. 647 , 175 S.E.2d 86 (1970); Cheeley v. Fujino, 131 Ga. App. 41 , 205 S.E.2d 83 (1974).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur. 2d. - 3B Am. Jur. 2d, Aliens and Citizens, § 1823 et seq. 3C Am. Jur. 2d, Aliens and Citizens, § 2086 et seq.

C.J.S. - 3 C.J.S., Aliens, §§ 8 et seq., 35 et seq., 176 et seq.

ALR. - When receiver of corporation deemed to be vested with title to assets so as to entitle him to sue in a foreign jurisdiction, 29 A.L.R. 1495 .

Reciprocity as affecting comity, 87 A.L.R. 973 .

Right of resident alien who is a subject of an enemy country to prosecute suit during war, 137 A.L.R. 1347 ; 147 A.L.R. 1303 ; 149 A.L.R. 1453 ; 151 A.L.R. 1453 .

Right of nonresident alien subject of enemy nation to institute suit after commencement of war, 137 A.L.R. 1355 ; 147 A.L.R. 1307 ; 148 A.L.R. 1385 ; 149 A.L.R. 1454 ; 151 A.L.R. 1454 ; 155 A.L.R. 1450 .

Suits and remedies against alien enemy, 144 A.L.R. 1508 .

Effect of war on litigation pending at the time of its outbreak, 147 A.L.R. 1298 ; 148 A.L.R. 1384 ; 149 A.L.R. 1452 ; 150 A.L.R. 1418 ; 154 A.L.R. 1447 .

Suits and remedies against alien enemies, 147 A.L.R. 1309 ; 148 A.L.R. 1386 ; 149 A.L.R. 1454 ; 152 A.L.R. 1451 ; 153 A.L.R. 1419 ; 155 A.L.R. 1451 ; 156 A.L.R. 1448 ; 157 A.L.R. 1449 .

Conflict of laws as to survival or revival of wrongful death actions against estate or personal representative of wrongdoer, 17 A.L.R.2d 690.

1-2-11. Rights of aliens generally; purchase, holding, and conveyance of realty.

  1. Aliens are the subjects of foreign governments who have not been naturalized under the laws of the United States.
  2. Aliens who are subjects of governments at peace with the United States and this state, as long as their governments remain at peace with the United States and this state, shall be entitled to all the rights of citizens of other states who are temporarily in this state and shall have the privilege of purchasing, holding, and conveying real estate in this state.

    (Laws 1785, Cobb's 1851 Digest, p. 364; Laws 1849, Cobb's 1851 Digest, p. 367; Code 1863, §§ 1592, 1593; Code 1868, §§ 1655, 1656; Code 1873, §§ 1660, 1661; Code 1882, §§ 1660, 1661; Civil Code 1895, §§ 1814, 1816; Civil Code 1910, §§ 2171, 2173; Code 1933, §§ 79-302, 79-303.)

Cross references. - Licensing of aliens as physicians, osteopaths, and other medical professionals, §§ 43-34-28 , 43-34-30 .

Restrictions on hiring of aliens by state government or political subdivisions thereof, § 45-2-7 .

Law reviews. - For article discussing inheritance by aliens, see 10 Ga. L. Rev. 447 (1976). For article discussing legal aspects of investments and trade in Georgia by foreign business enterprises, see 27 Mercer L. Rev. 629 (1976).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

O.C.G.A. § 1-2-11 applies to citizens of foreign countries who are residing within the United States but does not extend to nonresident aliens. AT&T Corp. v. Sigala, 274 Ga. 137 , 549 S.E.2d 373 (2001).

O.C.G.A. §§ 1-2-10 and 1-2-11 , regarding the rights of citizens of other nations to sue in Georgia, apply to citizens of foreign countries who are residing within the United States and do not extend to nonresident aliens; a decision adopting the doctrine of forum non conveniens was not decided on the basis of those statutes or the rights and privileges those statutes concern. Gonzalez v. DOT, 279 Ga. 230 , 610 S.E.2d 527 (2005).

Entire will not invalidated by creation of void legacy for enemy alien wife. - If a wife was an alien enemy, and as such could not be a beneficiary under a will, then the nomination of her as a beneficiary would have amounted to no more than the creation of a void legacy. In such a case, the effect of the invalidity of the legacy is to render the legacy void, but not to invalidate the entire will, and it is no ground of caveat to the probate of a will that a devise to a particular person may be void. Shaw v. Fehn, 196 Ga. 661 , 27 S.E.2d 406 (1943).

Cited in Fehn v. Shaw, 201 Ga. 517 , 40 S.E.2d 547 (1946); Cheeley v. Fujino, 131 Ga. App. 41 , 205 S.E.2d 83 (1974).

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Philippine citizens. - With certain minor exceptions, Philippine citizens are permitted under Georgia law to exploit natural resources and operate public utilities on the same basis as American citizens, corporations, or associations. 1967 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 67-245.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur. 2d. - 3A Am. Jur. 2d, Aliens and Citizens, §§ 5 et seq., 284 et seq., 862 et seq., 961 et seq. 3B Am. Jur. 2d, Aliens and Citizens, §§ 1170 et seq., 1823 et seq. 3C Am. Jur. 2d, Aliens and Citizens, § 2086 et seq.

C.J.S. - 3 C.J.S., Aliens, §§ 8 et seq., 149 et seq.

ALR. - Dower of alien widow in estate of deceased husband, 110 A.L.R. 520 .

Right of alien enemy to take by inheritance or by will, 137 A.L.R. 1328 ; 147 A.L.R. 1297 ; 150 A.L.R. 1418 ; 152 A.L.R. 1450 .

Constitutionality, construction, and application of provision of state statute that makes right of alien to succeed to property of deceased person dependent upon a reciprocal right in United States citizens, 170 A.L.R. 966 .

State regulation of land ownership by alien corporation, 21 A.L.R.4th 1329.

Validity of state statutes restricting the right of aliens to bear arms, 28 A.L.R.4th 1096.

CHAPTER 3 LAWS AND STATUTES

Sec.

Cross references. - Duty of Secretary of State to provide copies of legislative Acts to Office of Legislative Counsel and to court clerks, § 45-13-24 .

Editor's notes. - By resolution (Ga. L. 1986, p. 529), the General Assembly designated the English language as the official language of the State of Georgia.

Law reviews. - For article discussing problems of construction when repeal statutes are subsequently repealed, see 10 Ga. St. B.J. 41 (1973). For article, "Statutes of Nonstatutory Origin," see 14 Ga. L. Rev. 239 (1980). For article, "Law Among the Pleonasms: The Futility and Aconstitutionality of Legislative History in Statutory Interpretation," see 41 Emory L.J. 113 (1992).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

ALR. - Supplying omitted words in statute or ordinance, 3 A.L.R. 404 ; 126 A.L.R. 1325 .

Inhibition by decree of divorce or statute of state or country in which it is granted, against remarriage, as affecting a marriage celebrated in another state or country, 51 A.L.R. 325 .

Constitutionality of statute relating to purchase of capital stock by employees of corporation, 63 A.L.R. 841 .

Previous statute as affected by attempted but unconstitutional amendment, 66 A.L.R. 1483 .

Applicability of constitutional provision requiring reenactment of altered or amended statute to one which leaves intact terms of original statute, but transfers or extends its operation to another field, 67 A.L.R. 564 .

Constitutionality of curative statutes purporting to validate prior unconstitutional statutes, or statutes not enacted in the manner prescribed by the Constitution, 70 A.L.R. 1436 .

Unconstitutionality of later statute as affecting provision purporting specifically to repeal earlier statute, 102 A.L.R. 802 .

Determination of conditions that terminate operation of legislative act which by virtue of its terms or constitutional considerations is temporary, 104 A.L.R. 1163 .

Liability of public officer in respect of public money paid out in reliance upon unconstitutional statute, 118 A.L.R. 787 .

"And/or," 118 A.L.R. 1367 ; 154 A.L.R. 866 .

Inclusion or exclusion of the day of birth in computing one's age, 5 A.L.R.2d 1143.

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.

Extraterritorial operation of limitation applicable to statutory cause of action, other than by reason of "borrowing statute,", 95 A.L.R.2d 1162.

1-3-1. Construction of statutes generally.

  1. In all interpretations of statutes, the courts shall look diligently for the intention of the General Assembly, keeping in view at all times the old law, the evil, and the remedy. Grammatical errors shall not vitiate a law. A transposition of words and clauses may be resorted to when a sentence or clause is without meaning as it stands.
  2. In all interpretations of statutes, the ordinary signification shall be applied to all words, except words of art or words connected with a particular trade or subject matter, which shall have the signification attached to them by experts in such trade or with reference to such subject matter.
  3. A substantial compliance with any statutory requirement, especially on the part of public officers, shall be deemed and held sufficient, and no proceeding shall be declared void for want of such compliance, unless expressly so provided by law.
  4. In addition to the rules for construction prescribed in subsections (a) through (c) of this Code section, the rules provided in this subsection shall govern the construction of all statutes with respect to the subjects enumerated.
    1. BONDS. When a bond is required by law, an undertaking in writing, without seal, is sufficient; and in all bonds where the names of the obligors do not appear in the bond but are subscribed thereto, they are bound thereby.
    2. CENSUS. Whenever there is used in the statutory law of this state the term "federal census," "United States census," "decennial census," or similar words referring to the official census conducted every ten years by the United States of America or any agency thereof as required by Article I, Section II, Paragraph III of the Constitution of the United States, the effective date of such census for the purpose of making operative and of force any statutory law of this state shall be determined as follows:
      1. The effective date of the census shall be July 1 of the first year after the year in which the census is conducted, for the purpose of making operative and of force the following laws:
        1. Code Section 15-16-20;
        2. Code Sections 15-6-88 through 15-6-91;
        3. Code Section 48-5-183;
        4. Code Sections 15-9-63 through 15-9-66;
        5. Code Section 36-5-25;
        6. Code Section 15-10-23; and
        7. Code Section 45-16-11;

          provided, however, that if a county's population decreases according to a more recent census below its population according to an earlier census, then, notwithstanding any other provision of law, any officer who is compensated under a law specified in this subparagraph and who is in office on the date specified in this subparagraph shall continue during his entire tenure in such office (including any future terms of office in such office) to be compensated on the basis of the county's population according to such earlier census;

      2. For purposes of any program of grants of state funds to local governments, the effective date of the census shall be July 1 of the first year after the year in which the census is conducted;
      3. For the purpose of reconstituting the membership of any constitutional or statutory board, commission, or body whose members are appointed from congressional districts, the effective date of the census shall be January 1 of the third year after the year in which the census is conducted;
      4. The effective date of the census shall be July 1 of the second year after the year in which the census is conducted for the purpose of making operative and of force all other statutory laws which do not expressly provide otherwise.
    3. COMPUTATION OF TIME. Except as otherwise provided by time period computations specifically applying to other laws, when a period of time measured in days, weeks, months, years, or other measurements of time except hours is prescribed for the exercise of any privilege or the discharge of any duty, the first day shall not be counted but the last day shall be counted; and, if the last day falls on Saturday or Sunday, the party having such privilege or duty shall have through the following Monday to exercise the privilege or to discharge the duty. When the last day prescribed for such action falls on a public and legal holiday as set forth in Code Section 1-4-1, the party having the privilege or duty shall have through the next business day to exercise the privilege or to discharge the duty. When the period of time prescribed is less than seven days, intermediate Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays shall be excluded in the computation.
    4. GENDER. The masculine gender includes the feminine and the neuter.
    5. JOINT AUTHORITY. A joint authority given to any number of persons or officers may be executed by a majority of them, unless it is otherwise declared.
    6. NUMBER. The singular or plural number each includes the other, unless the other is expressly excluded.
    7. TENSE. The present or past tense includes the future.

      (Orig. Code 1863, § 5; Code 1868, § 4; Code 1873, § 4; Code 1882, § 4; Civil Code 1895, § 4; Penal Code 1895, § 1; Civil Code 1910, § 4; Penal Code 1910, § 1; Code 1933, § 102-102; Ga. L. 1958, p. 388, § 1; Ga. L. 1963, p. 608, § 1; Ga. L. 1967, p. 579, § 1; Ga. L. 1981, p. 951, § 1; Ga. L. 1985, p. 648, § 1; Ga. L. 1990, p. 1903, § 1; Ga. L. 2001, p. 902, § 22; Ga. L. 2012, p. 173, § 2-1/HB 665; Ga. L. 2018, p. 356, § 2-1/SB 436.)

The 2018 amendment, effective July 1, 2018, substituted "15-9-66" for "15-9-67" in division (d)(2)(A)(iv).

Cross references. - Computation of time in regard to exercise of privileges or discharge of duties prescribed or required by election laws, § 21-2-14 .

Construction of multiple amendments to same Code provision, § 28-9-5 .

Law reviews. - For article comparing sections of the "Georgia Civil Practice Act" with preexisting provisions of the Georgia Code, see 3 Ga. St. B. J. 295 (1967). For article on the problems and benefits of multiple fiduciaries in estate planning, see 33 Mercer L. Rev. 355 (1981). For article surveying Insurance Law in 1984-1985, see 37 Mercer L. Rev. 275 (1985). For article surveying administrative law, see 38 Mercer L. Rev. 17 (1986). For article, "The Amended Open Meetings Law: New Requirements for Publicly Funded Corporations As Well As Governmental Agencies," see 25 Ga. St. B. J. 78 (1988). For article, "The Canons of Construction in Georgia: Anachronisms in Action," see 25 Ga. L. Rev. 365 (1991). For note, "Regulation and Ownership of the Marshlands: The Georgia Marshlands Act," see 5 Ga. L. Rev. 563 (1971). For article on commercial law, see 53 Mercer L. Rev. 153 (2001). For article on construction law, see 53 Mercer L. Rev. 173 (2001). For article on trial practice and procedure, see 53 Mercer L. Rev. 475 (2001). For survey article on administrative law, see 60 Mercer L. Rev. 1 (2008). For annual survey of law on real property, see 62 Mercer L. Rev. 283 (2010). For annual survey on trial practice and procedure, see 64 Mercer L. Rev. 305 (2012). For article, "Researching Georgia Law," see 34 Ga. St. U. L. Rev. 741 (2015). For comment on Tarrant v. Davis, 62 Ga. App. 880 , 10 S.E.2d 636 (1940), see 3 Ga. B.J. 54 (1941). For comment on Tift v. Bush, 209 Ga. 769 , 75 S.E.2d 805 (1953), see 16 Ga. B.J. 224 (1953). For comment on Wilkinson v. Townsend, 96 Ga. App. 179 , 99 S.E.2d 539 (1957) wherein the statutory authorization for the police to remove an abandoned automobile to a garage was held not to create an agency relationship between the police and auto owner giving rise to a lien against the auto owner by the garageman, see 9 Mercer L. Rev. 372 (1958).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

ANALYSIS

General Consideration

Construction cannot render statute meaningless. - Because the purpose of O.C.G.A. § 17-6-72(d)(1) was remedial and had to therefore be construed in favor of the surety, in interpreting the statute and avoiding a meaningless result the trial court properly allowed a surety a remission of 50 percent of the bond amount after the surety filed its application for the bond at any time within 30 days following the expiration of the two-year period following the date of judgment. State of Ga. v. Free At Last Bail Bonds, 285 Ga. App. 734 , 647 S.E.2d 402 (2007).

Cited in Citizens & S. Bank v. Taggart, 164 Ga. 351 , 138 S.E. 898 (1927); City of Columbus v. Muscogee Mfg. Co., 165 Ga. 259 , 140 S.E. 860 (1927); Export Ins. Co. v. Womack, 165 Ga. 815 , 142 S.E. 851 (1928); Willcox v. Beechwood Band Mill Co., 166 Ga. 367 , 143 S.E. 405 (1928); Allen v. Allen, 39 Ga. App. 624 , 147 S.E. 798 (1929); Mobley v. Chamblee, 39 Ga. App. 645 , 148 S.E. 306 (1929); Almond v. Mobley, 40 Ga. App. 305 , 149 S.E. 293 (1929); Georgia Paper Stock Co. v. State Tax Bd., 174 Ga. 816 , 164 S.E. 197 (1932); Carter v. Land, 174 Ga. 811 , 164 S.E. 205 (1932); Murphy v. Lowry, 178 Ga. 138 , 172 S.E. 457 (1933); Minsk v. Cook, 48 Ga. App. 567 , 173 S.E. 446 (1934); Jackson v. State, 49 Ga. App. 345 , 175 S.E. 421 (1934); Montag Bros. v. State Revenue Comm'n, 50 Ga. App. 660 , 179 S.E. 563 (1935); Eason v. Morrison, 181 Ga. 322 , 182 S.E. 163 (1935); Southland Ice Co. v. Doyal, 181 Ga. 797 , 184 S.E. 295 (1936); Marshall v. Walker, 183 Ga. 44 , 187 S.E. 81 (1936); State Revenue Comm'n v. Alexander, 54 Ga. App. 295 , 187 S.E. 707 (1936); Longino v. Hanley, 184 Ga. 328 , 191 S.E. 101 (1937); Jones v. Boykin, 185 Ga. 606 , 196 S.E. 900 (1938); Sanders v. Paschal, 186 Ga. 837 , 199 S.E. 153 (1938); Kesler v. Groover, 58 Ga. App. 548 , 199 S.E. 332 (1938); Austin-Western Rd. Mach. Co. v. Fayette County, 99 F.2d 565 (5th Cir. 1938); Burden v. Gates, 188 Ga. 284 , 3 S.E.2d 679 (1939); General Accident, Fire & Life Assurance Corp. v. John P. King Mfg. Co., 60 Ga. App. 281 , 3 S.E.2d 841 (1939); Cason v. State, 60 Ga. App. 626 , 4 S.E.2d 713 (1939); State v. Camp, 189 Ga. 209 , 6 S.E.2d 299 (1939); Harrell v. Southeastern Pipe-Line Co., 190 Ga. 709 , 10 S.E.2d 386 (1940); Maddox v. First Nat'l Bank, 191 Ga. 106 , 11 S.E.2d 662 (1940); Jones v. State, 64 Ga. App. 376 , 13 S.E.2d 462 (1941); Forrester v. Trust Co., 65 Ga. App. 167 , 15 S.E.2d 559 (1941); Hirsch v. Shepherd Lumber Corp., 194 Ga. 113 , 20 S.E.2d 575 (1942); Wharton v. State, 67 Ga. App. 545 , 21 S.E.2d 258 (1942); Preston v. National Life & Accident Ins. Co., 196 Ga. 217 , 26 S.E.2d 439 (1943); Nixon v. Nixon, 196 Ga. 148 , 26 S.E.2d 711 (1943); Owens v. State, 72 Ga. App. 11 , 32 S.E.2d 848 (1945); Cook v. Cobb, 72 Ga. App. 150 , 33 S.E.2d 366 (1945); Blige v. State, 72 Ga. App. 438 , 33 S.E.2d 917 (1945); Lumpkin v. State, 73 Ga. App. 229 , 36 S.E.2d 123 (1945); Thompson v. Eastern Air Lines, 200 Ga. 216 , 39 S.E.2d 225 (1946); Wright v. State, 75 Ga. App. 764 , 44 S.E.2d 569 (1947); Smith v. AMOCO, 77 Ga. App. 463 , 49 S.E.2d 90 (1948); Nashville, C. & St. L. Ry. v. Ham, 78 Ga. App. 403 , 50 S.E.2d 831 (1948); Citizens Loan & Sec. Co. v. Trust Co., 79 Ga. App. 184 , 53 S.E.2d 179 (1949); Childs v. Hampton, 80 Ga. App. 748 , 57 S.E.2d 291 (1950); Delinski v. Dunn, 206 Ga. 825 , 59 S.E.2d 248 (1950); Norris v. McDaniel, 207 Ga. 232 , 60 S.E.2d 329 (1950); Bussey v. Hager, 82 Ga. App. 23 , 60 S.E.2d 532 (1950); Reece v. State, 208 Ga. 165 , 66 S.E.2d 133 (1951); Camp v. Trapp, 209 Ga. 298 , 71 S.E.2d 534 (1952); Payne v. Moore Fin. Co., 87 Ga. App. 627 , 74 S.E.2d 746 (1953); Beazley v. De Kalb County, 210 Ga. 41 , 77 S.E.2d 740 (1953); State v. Cherokee Brick & Tile Co., 89 Ga. App. 235 , 79 S.E.2d 322 (1953); Trowbridge v. Dominy, 92 Ga. App. 177 , 88 S.E.2d 161 (1955); Jenkins v. State, 93 Ga. App. 360 , 92 S.E.2d 43 (1956); Stein Steel & Supply Co. v. Tate, 94 Ga. App. 517 , 95 S.E.2d 437 (1956); Scheuer v. Housing Auth., 214 Ga. 842 , 108 S.E.2d 264 (1959); Dell v. Kugel, 99 Ga. App. 551 , 109 S.E.2d 532 (1959); Crosby v. State, 100 Ga. App. 49 , 110 S.E.2d 94 (1959); City Whsle. Co. v. Harper, 100 Ga. App. 151 , 110 S.E.2d 561 (1959); Smith v. A.A. Wood & Son Co., 103 Ga. App. 802 , 120 S.E.2d 800 (1961); Williams v. Hudgens, 217 Ga. 706 , 124 S.E.2d 746 (1962); Utzman v. Caribbean & S.E. Dev. Corp., 107 Ga. App. 56 , 129 S.E.2d 62 (1962); First Nat'l Ins. Co. of Am. v. Thain, 107 Ga. App. 100 , 129 S.E.2d 381 (1962); Dyson v. Dixon, 219 Ga. 427 , 134 S.E.2d 1 (1963); Balkcom v. Defore, 219 Ga. 641 , 135 S.E.2d 425 (1964); Mach v. State, 109 Ga. App. 154 , 135 S.E.2d 467 (1964); Stull v. Jack Stull, Inc., 220 Ga. 271 , 138 S.E.2d 379 (1964); Goldstein v. Karr, 110 Ga. App. 806 , 140 S.E.2d 40 (1964); Mitchell v. State, 111 Ga. App. 11 , 140 S.E.2d 290 (1965); Millhollan v. State, 221 Ga. 165 , 143 S.E.2d 730 (1965); McVay v. Anderson, 221 Ga. 381 , 144 S.E.2d 741 (1965); Montgomery v. Gilbert, 112 Ga. App. 751 , 146 S.E.2d 115 (1965); Red Hill Lumber Co. v. Miller, 112 Ga. App. 882 , 146 S.E.2d 918 (1966); Smith v. Smith, 113 Ga. App. 111 , 147 S.E.2d 466 (1966); State v. Livingston, 222 Ga. 441 , 150 S.E.2d 648 (1966); Wall v. Youmans, 223 Ga. 191 , 154 S.E.2d 191 (1967); Herrin v. Herrin, 224 Ga. 579 , 163 S.E.2d 713 (1968); Daniels v. Allen, 118 Ga. App. 722 , 165 S.E.2d 449 (1968); Martin Theaters of Ga., Inc. v. Lloyd, 118 Ga. App. 835 , 165 S.E.2d 909 (1968); Anthony v. Anthony, 120 Ga. App. 261 , 170 S.E.2d 273 (1969); Aliotta v. Gilreath, 226 Ga. 263 , 174 S.E.2d 403 (1970); Thompson v. Abbott, 226 Ga. 353 , 174 S.E.2d 904 (1970); Mull v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 226 Ga. 462 , 175 S.E.2d 552 (1970); Citizens & S. Nat'l Bank v. Fulton County, 123 Ga. App. 323 , 180 S.E.2d 905 (1971); Morris v. Durbin, 123 Ga. App. 383 , 180 S.E.2d 925 (1971); Save The Bay Comm., Inc. v. Mayor of Savannah, 227 Ga. 436 , 181 S.E.2d 351 (1971); Ansley v. State, 124 Ga. App. 670 , 185 S.E.2d 562 (1971); Watts v. Teagle, 124 Ga. App. 726 , 185 S.E.2d 803 (1971); Mickas v. Mickas, 229 Ga. 10 , 189 S.E.2d 81 (1972); Winston Corp. v. Park Elec. Co., 126 Ga. App. 489 , 191 S.E.2d 340 (1972); Dukes v. Ralston Purina Co., 127 Ga. App. 696 , 194 S.E.2d 630 (1972); Nevels v. City of Sale City, 128 Ga. App. 65 , 195 S.E.2d 658 (1973); Montaquila v. Cranford, 129 Ga. App. 787 , 201 S.E.2d 335 (1973); Jackson v. State, 130 Ga. App. 581 , 203 S.E.2d 923 (1974); Stepp v. Lance, 131 Ga. App. 193 , 205 S.E.2d 490 (1974); Queen v. State, 131 Ga. App. 370 , 205 S.E.2d 921 (1974); Pate v. Milford A. Scott Real Estate Co., 132 Ga. App. 49 , 207 S.E.2d 567 (1974); Jones v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co., 132 Ga. App. 130 , 207 S.E.2d 613 (1974); Vohs v. Dickson, 495 F.2d 607 (5th Cir. 1974); J.A.T. v. State, 133 Ga. App. 922 , 212 S.E.2d 879 (1975); Dunn v. Cofer, 134 Ga. App. 173 , 213 S.E.2d 483 (1975); Blackmon v. Dixon, 134 Ga. App. 184 , 213 S.E.2d 513 (1975); Chanin v. Bibb County, 234 Ga. 282 , 216 S.E.2d 250 (1975); Hinson v. Georgia State Bd. of Dental Exmrs., 135 Ga. App. 488 , 218 S.E.2d 162 (1975); DeFreeze v. State, 136 Ga. App. 10 , 220 S.E.2d 17 (1975); Stitt v. Busbee, 136 Ga. App. 44 , 220 S.E.2d 59 (1975); Garren v. Southland Corp., 235 Ga. 784 , 221 S.E.2d 571 (1976); Givens v. Dunn Labs., Inc., 138 Ga. App. 26 , 225 S.E.2d 480 (1976); H.R. Lee Inv. Corp. v. Groover, 138 Ga. App. 231 , 225 S.E.2d 742 (1976); Camp v. Hamrick, 139 Ga. App. 61 , 228 S.E.2d 288 (1976); Blumenau v. Citizens & S. Nat'l Bank, 139 Ga. App. 188 , 228 S.E.2d 302 (1976); Turner Communications Corp. v. Georgia Dep't of Transp., 139 Ga. App. 436 , 228 S.E.2d 399 (1976); Jones v. State, 139 Ga. App. 679 , 229 S.E.2d 149 (1976); Smith v. State, 140 Ga. App. 200 , 230 S.E.2d 350 (1976); M. Shapiro & Son v. Yates Constr. Co., 140 Ga. App. 675 , 231 S.E.2d 497 (1976); Eason Publications v. Atlanta Gazette, Inc., 141 Ga. App. 321 , 233 S.E.2d 232 (1977); DOT v. Spells Sign Co., 141 Ga. App. 350 , 233 S.E.2d 435 (1977); Leathers v. Gilland, 141 Ga. App. 681 , 234 S.E.2d 336 (1977); Chilivis v. IBM Corp., 142 Ga. App. 160 , 235 S.E.2d 626 (1977); Vansant v. Allstate Ins. Co., 142 Ga. App. 684 , 236 S.E.2d 858 (1977); State v. Jackson, 143 Ga. App. 88 , 237 S.E.2d 533 (1977); Green v. Decatur Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 143 Ga. App. 368 , 238 S.E.2d 740 (1977); Retail Union Health & Welfare Fund v. Seabrum, 240 Ga. 695 , 242 S.E.2d 18 (1978); Richmond County Bd. of Tax Assessors v. Georgia R.R. Bank & Trust Co., 242 Ga. 23 , 247 S.E.2d 761 (1978); Young v. Department of Human Resources, 148 Ga. App. 518 , 251 S.E.2d 578 (1978); National Adv. Co. v. Department of Transp., 149 Ga. App. 334 , 254 S.E.2d 571 (1979)

Parker v. Ryder Truck Lines, 150 Ga. App. 163 , 257 S.E.2d 18 (1979); Yeomans v. American Nat'l Ins. Co., 150 Ga. App. 334 , 258 S.E.2d 1 (1979); Bergen v. Martindale-Hubbell, Inc., 245 Ga. 742 , 267 S.E.2d 10 (1980); Fair v. State, 245 Ga. 868 , 268 S.E.2d 316 (1980); Floyd County Bd. of Comm'rs v. Floyd County Merit Sys. Bd., 246 Ga. 44 , 268 S.E.2d 651 (1980); State v. Germany, 246 Ga. 455 , 271 S.E.2d 851 (1980); McCord v. Housing Auth., 246 Ga. 547 , 272 S.E.2d 247 (1980); Lester v. Crooms, Inc., 157 Ga. App. 377 , 277 S.E.2d 751 (1981); Earth Mgt., Inc. v. Heard County, 248 Ga. 442 , 283 S.E.2d 455 (1981); Ford v. Termplan, Inc., 528 F. Supp. 1016 (N.D. Ga. 1981); West v. Dorsey, 248 Ga. 790 , 285 S.E.2d 703 (1982); State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Hancock, 164 Ga. App. 32 , 295 S.E.2d 359 (1982); Bunkley v. Hendrix, 164 Ga. App. 401 , 296 S.E.2d 223 (1982); Tabb v. State, 250 Ga. 317 , 297 S.E.2d 227 (1982); State v. Chumley, 164 Ga. App. 828 , 299 S.E.2d 564 (1982); McGee v. State, 165 Ga. App. 423 , 299 S.E.2d 573 (1983); Sabel v. State, 250 Ga. 640 , 300 S.E.2d 663 (1983); Leavell v. Life Ins. Co., 165 Ga. App. 770 , 302 S.E.2d 623 (1983); Cheely v. State, 251 Ga. 685 , 309 S.E.2d 128 (1983); DeWaters v. City of Atlanta, 169 Ga. App. 41 , 311 S.E.2d 232 (1983); Camp v. City of Columbus, 252 Ga. 120 , 311 S.E.2d 834 (1984); St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Nixon, 252 Ga. 469 , 314 S.E.2d 215 (1984); American Hosp. Supply Corp. v. Starline Mfg. Corp., 171 Ga. App. 790 , 320 S.E.2d 857 (1984); Ausburn v. Anthony, 173 Ga. App. 505 , 326 S.E.2d 588 (1985); Smith v. Smith, 254 Ga. 450 , 330 S.E.2d 706 (1985); Shirley v. State, 254 Ga. 723 , 334 S.E.2d 154 (1985); DeKalb County School Dist. v. Bowden, 177 Ga. App. 296 , 339 S.E.2d 356 (1985); DeKalb County v. Nall, 178 Ga. App. 429 , 343 S.E.2d 113 (1986); Midland Nat'l Life Ins. Co. v. Citizens & S. Nat'l Bank, 641 F. Supp. 516 (M.D. Ga. 1986); Bowen v. City of Columbus, 256 Ga. 462 , 349 S.E.2d 740 (1986); Grissett v. Wilson, 181 Ga. App. 727 , 353 S.E.2d 621 (1987); Alexander v. Macon-Bibb County Urban Dev. Auth. & Urban Properties #47, 257 Ga. 181 , 357 S.E.2d 62 (1987); Woods v. General Elec. Credit Auto Lease, Inc., 187 Ga. App. 57 , 369 S.E.2d 334 (1988); ADC Constr. Co. v. Hall, 191 Ga. App. 33 , 381 S.E.2d 76 (1989); Star Mfg., Inc. v. Edenfield, 191 Ga. App. 665 , 382 S.E.2d 706 (1989); AAA Bonding Co. v. State, 192 Ga. App. 684 , 386 S.E.2d 50 (1989); State v. Allen, 192 Ga. App. 730 , 386 S.E.2d 394 (1989); Thompson v. Tom Harvey Ford Mercury, Inc., 193 Ga. App. 64 , 387 S.E.2d 28 (1989); Management Comp. Group/Southeast, Inc. v. United Sec. Emp. Programs, Inc., 194 Ga. App. 99 , 389 S.E.2d 525 (1989); Kolker v. State, 260 Ga. 240 , 391 S.E.2d 391 (1990); Griffin v. State, 194 Ga. App. 624 , 391 S.E.2d 675 (1990); Roman v. Terrell, 195 Ga. App. 219 , 393 S.E.2d 83 (1990); Palmer v. State, 260 Ga. 330 , 393 S.E.2d 251 (1990); DOT v. Moseman Constr. Co., 260 Ga. 369 , 393 S.E.2d 258 (1990); State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Day, 195 Ga. App. 823 , 394 S.E.2d 913 (1990); Atlanta Cas. Ins. Co. v. Crews, 197 Ga. App. 48 , 397 S.E.2d 466 (1990); Alexander v. Steining, 197 Ga. App. 328 , 398 S.E.2d 390 (1990); Reid Rental, Inc. v. City of Waycross, 197 Ga. App. 676 , 399 S.E.2d 247 (1990); Johnson v. Housing Auth., 198 Ga. App. 816 , 403 S.E.2d 97 (1991); Garvey v. Mendenhall, 199 Ga. App. 241 , 404 S.E.2d 613 (1991); Day v. Burnett, 199 Ga. App. 494 , 405 S.E.2d 316 (1991); Thomason v. State, 199 Ga. App. 875 , 406 S.E.2d 528 (1991); Board of Natural Resources v. Walker County, 200 Ga. App. 301 , 407 S.E.2d 436 (1991); Atlanta Journal & Constitution v. Sims, 200 Ga. App. 236 , 407 S.E.2d 464 (1991); Foody v. State, 200 Ga. App. 230 , 407 S.E.2d 469 (1991); Smith v. Turner, 764 F. Supp. 632 (N.D. Ga. 1991); Jewell v. State, 200 Ga. App. 203 , 407 S.E.2d 763 (1991); Calhoon v. Mr. Locksmith Co., 200 Ga. App. 618 , 409 S.E.2d 226 (1991); Rainbow Mfg. Co. v. Bank of Fitzgerald, 129 Bankr. 702 (Bankr. M.D. Ga. 1991); Rolleston v. Munford, 201 Ga. App. 219 , 410 S.E.2d 801 (1991); Liberty Nat'l Life Ins. Co. v. Coley, 201 Ga. App. 623 , 411 S.E.2d 553 (1991); Calhoun County Hosp. Auth. v. Walker, 205 Ga. App. 259 , 421 S.E.2d 777 (1992); Fisch v. Randall Mill Corp., 262 Ga. 861 , 426 S.E.2d 883 (1993); Givins v. State, 207 Ga. App. 334 , 428 S.E.2d 452 (1993); Weems v. Munson Transp., Inc., 210 Ga. App. 766 , 437 S.E.2d 640 (1993); State v. Evans, 212 Ga. App. 415 , 442 S.E.2d 287 (1994); Franklin v. Hill, 264 Ga. 302 , 444 S.E.2d 778 (1994); Weiland v. Weiland, 216 Ga. App. 417 , 454 S.E.2d 613 (1995); Miller v. Georgia Ports Auth., 266 Ga. 586 , 470 S.E.2d 426 (1996); Holmes v. Chatham Area Transit Auth., 233 Ga. App. 42 , 505 S.E.2d 225 (1998); VSI Enters., Inc. v. Edwards, 238 Ga. App. 369 , 518 S.E.2d 765 (1999); S & A Indus. v. Bank Atlanta, 247 Ga. App. 377 , 543 S.E.2d 743 (2000); Gullatt v. Omega Psi Phi Fraternity, Inc., 248 Ga. App. 779 , 546 S.E.2d 927 (2001); McKenzie v. State, 250 Ga. App. 277 , 549 S.E.2d 774 (2001); Cox v. Barber, 275 Ga. 415 , 568 S.E.2d 478 (2002); In the Interest of T. H., 258 Ga. App. 416 , 574 S.E.2d 461 (2002); Ga. Dep't of Cmty. Health, Div. of Health Planning v. Gwinnett Hosp. Sys., 262 Ga. App. 879 , 586 S.E.2d 762 (2003); Waters v. Stewart, 263 Ga. App. 195 , 587 S.E.2d 307 (2003); Dep't of Human Res. v. Nation, 265 Ga. App. 434 , 594 S.E.2d 383 (2004); Johnson v. Ga. Dep't of Human Res., 278 Ga. 714 , 606 S.E.2d 270 (2004); Cochran v. Bowers, 274 Ga. App. 449 , 617 S.E.2d 563 (2005); In the Interest of K.M.C., 273 Ga. App. 276 , 614 S.E.2d 896 (2005); Effingham County Bd. of Tax Assessors v. Samwilka, Inc., 278 Ga. App. 521 , 629 S.E.2d 501 (2006); Summerlin v. Ga. Pines Cmty. Serv. Bd., 278 Ga. App. 831 , 630 S.E.2d 115 (2006); In the Interest of L.J., 279 Ga. App. 237 , 630 S.E.2d 771 (2006); Goswick v. Murray County Bd. of Educ., 281 Ga. App. 442 , 636 S.E.2d 133 (2006); Echols v. Echols, 281 Ga. 546 , 640 S.E.2d 257 (2007); Merry v. Williams, 281 Ga. 571 , 642 S.E.2d 46 (2007); In the Interest of D.B., 284 Ga. App. 445 , 644 S.E.2d 305 (2007); DBL, Inc. v. Carson, 284 Ga. App. 898 , 645 S.E.2d 56 (2007); Leake v. Murphy, 284 Ga. App. 490 , 644 S.E.2d 328 (2007); Ga. Public Defender Stds. Council v. State of Ga., 284 Ga. App. 660 , 644 S.E.2d 510 (2007); In re Carter, 288 Ga. App. 276 , 653 S.E.2d 860 (2007); Charles H. Wesley Educ. Found., Inc. v. State Election Bd., 282 Ga. 707 , 654 S.E.2d 127 (2007); In re Estate of Miraglia, 290 Ga. App. 28 , 658 S.E.2d 777 (2008); Carolina Tobacco Co. v. Baker, 295 Ga. App. 115 , 670 S.E.2d 811 (2008); In the Interest of P.S., 295 Ga. App. 724 , 673 S.E.2d 74 (2009); Morrell v. State, 297 Ga. App. 592 , 677 S.E.2d 771 (2009); Moore v. Moore-McKinney, 297 Ga. App. 703 , 678 S.E.2d 152 (2009); Transworld Fin. Corp. v. Coastal Tire & Container Repair, LLC, 298 Ga. App. 286 , 680 S.E.2d 143 (2009); Frix v. State, 298 Ga. App. 538 , 680 S.E.2d 582 (2009); Peck v. State, 300 Ga. App. 375 , 685 S.E.2d 367 (2009); Emory Adventist, Inc. v. Hunter, 301 Ga. App. 215 , 687 S.E.2d 267 (2009); Northeast Atlanta Bonding Co. v. State, 308 Ga. App. 573 , 707 S.E.2d 921 (2011); Hill v. State, 309 Ga. App. 531 , 710 S.E.2d 667 (2011); Davenport v. State, 289 Ga. 399 , 711 S.E.2d 699 (2011); City of Atlanta v. City of College Park, 311 Ga. App. 62 , 715 S.E.2d 158 (2011); Luangkhot v. State, 313 Ga. App. 599 , 722 S.E.2d 193 (2012); Brown v. State, 314 Ga. App. 1 , 723 S.E.2d 112 (2012); Walker v. State, 290 Ga. 696 , 723 S.E.2d 894 (2012); Boyd v. State, 314 Ga. App. 883 , 726 S.E.2d 135 (2012); Mayor & Aldermen of Savannah v. Batson-Cook Co., 291 Ga. 114 , 728 S.E.2d 189 (2012); Brantley Land & Timber, LLC v. W & D Invs., Inc., 316 Ga. App. 277 , 729 S.E.2d 458 (2012); Nicholson Hills Dev. v. Branch Banking & Trust Co., 316 Ga. App. 857 , 730 S.E.2d 572 (2012); Inagawa v. Fayette County, 291 Ga. 715 , 732 S.E.2d 421 (2012); Gay v. Owens, 292 Ga. 480 , 738 S.E.2d 614 (2013); Norred v. Teaver, 320 Ga. App. 508 , 740 S.E.2d 251 (2013); Austin v. Bank of Am., N.A., 293 Ga. 42 , 743 S.E.2d 399 (2013)

Turner County v. City of Ashburn, 293 Ga. 739 , 749 S.E.2d 685 (2013); Nat'l City Mortg. Co. v. Tidwell, 293 Ga. 697 , 749 S.E.2d 730 (2013); Atlanta Indep. Sch. Sys. v. Atlanta Neighborhood Charter Sch., 293 Ga. 629 , 748 S.E.2d 884 (2013); Abdel-Samed v. Dailey, 294 Ga. 758 , 755 S.E.2d 805 (2014); L & K Enters., LLC v. City National Bank, N.A., 326 Ga. App. 744 , 755 S.E.2d 270 (2014); Sewell v. Cancel, 295 Ga. 235 , 759 S.E.2d 485 (2014); Park v. Bailey, 329 Ga. App. 569 , 765 S.E.2d 721 (2014); Fielder v. Johnson, 333 Ga. App. 658 , 773 S.E.2d 831 (2015), cert. denied, No. S15C1893, 2016 Ga. LEXIS 1 (Ga. 2016); AA-Prof'l Bail Bonding v. Deal, 332 Ga. App. 857 , 775 S.E.2d 217 (2015); Evans v. State, 334 Ga. App. 104 , 778 S.E.2d 360 (2015); Wright v. Brown, 336 Ga. App. 1 , 783 S.E.2d 405 (2016); State v. Mantooth, 337 Ga. App. 698 , 788 S.E.2d 584 (2016); Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Quiroga-Saenz, 343 Ga. App. 494 , 807 S.E.2d 460 (2017); Ga.-Pac. Consumer Prods., LP v. Ratner, 345 Ga. App. 434 , 812 S.E.2d 120 (2018); In re Estate of Gladstone, 303 Ga. 547 , 814 S.E.2d 1 (2018); Maddox v. State, 346 Ga. App. 674 , 816 S.E.2d 796 (2018); City of College Park v. Martin, 304 Ga. 488 , 818 S.E.2d 620 (2018); Moore v. Childs, 347 Ga. App. 560 , 820 S.E.2d 186 (2018).

Applicability

Section is intended to apply to provisions of the Code in the subject of wills. Ellis v. Darden, 86 Ga. 368 , 12 S.E. 652 , 11 L.R.A. 51 (1890).

Section applies to statutory, but not contractual, limitations. Rowell v. Harrell Realty Co., 25 Ga. App. 585 , 103 S.E. 717 (1920). ; see also Simpkins v. Johnson, 3 Ga. App. 437 , 60 S.E. 202 (1908); Maxwell Bros. v. Liverpool & London & Globe Ins. Co., 12 Ga. App. 127 , 76 S.E. 1036 (1913).

Section applies to construction of both municipal ordinances and statutes. Risser v. City of Thomasville, 248 Ga. 866 , 286 S.E.2d 727 (1982).

Paragraph (d)(3) of O.C.G.A. § 1-3-1 applies to contracts as well as statutes when the limitation is in terms of days. Management Search, Inc. v. Avon Prods., Inc., 166 Ga. App. 262 , 304 S.E.2d 426 (1983).

1985 amendment. - Because the 1985 amendment to paragraph (d)(3) of O.C.G.A. § 1-3-1 , effective July 1, 1985, was silent on the question of retroactive application, it has no application to a personal injury case where the period of limitations would have expired on June 29, 1985, under the law prior to the amendment. Loveless v. Grooms, 180 Ga. App. 424 , 349 S.E.2d 281 (1986).

The 1985 amendment to paragraph (d)(3) extended the old statutory time period where that time period had not yet expired prior to the effective date of the amendment. Hollingsworth v. Hubbard, 184 Ga. App. 121 , 361 S.E.2d 12 (1987).

Computation of time. - Superior court improperly dismissed as untimely appellant city's petition for a writ of certiorari challenging a civil service board's decision, as the petition was timely filed for purposes of O.C.G.A. § 5-4-6(a) since: (1) the last day to file the petition fell on Thanksgiving Day; (2) the Friday after Thanksgiving day, like Thanksgiving day, was a legal holiday as set forth in O.C.G.A. § 1-4-1 ; and (3) the petition was filed on the very next business day, as allowed by O.C.G.A. § 1-3-1(d)(3). City of Atlanta v. Hector, 256 Ga. App. 665 , 569 S.E.2d 600 (2002).

Denial of an untimely motion for a continuance was not an abuse of discretion, in the absence of a proffer of defendant's counsel's testimony or other evidence to support this claim. Currington v. State, 270 Ga. App. 381 , 606 S.E.2d 619 (2004).

Method of computation of time in O.C.G.A. § 1-3-1(d)(3) applies to the filing of renewal actions under O.C.G.A. § 9-2-61(a) . Parsons v. Capital Alliance Fin., LLC, 325 Ga. App. 884 , 756 S.E.2d 14 (2014).

Construction of "holidays." - Because the plain language of O.C.G.A. § 1-3-1(a) and § 5-6-38(a) make no provisions for extending the filing time for notices of appeal to compensate for county declared holidays and O.C.G.A. § 1-4-2 limits religious holidays to Sundays, Good Friday did not constitute a holiday for purposes of extending the filing date. In re Estate of Dasher, 259 Ga. App. 201 , 575 S.E.2d 921 (2002).

Definition according to experts in medical field. - Where executive agencies have rule-making powers delegated by the Georgia General Assembly, O.C.G.A. § 1-3-1(b) must yield to other rules of statutory construction; thus, the definition of "specialty" as understood by an American board on medical specialties was not controlling for purposes of the single-specialty exemption of O.C.G.A. § 31-6-2(14)(G)(iii) regarding the requirement of obtaining a certificate of need. Albany Surgical, P.C. v. Dep't of Cmty. Health, 257 Ga. App. 636 , 572 S.E.2d 638 (2002).

General Rules of Construction

Statute is presumed to be valid and constitutional until the contrary appears, and, where challenged as a whole, the attack will necessarily fail unless the statute is invalid in every part for some reason alleged. Williams v. Ragsdale, 205 Ga. 274 , 53 S.E.2d 339 (1949).

A solemn Act of the General Assembly is presumed to be constitutional. State v. Davis, 246 Ga. 761 , 272 S.E.2d 721 (1980).

A statute properly enacted is presumed to be constitutional. Development Auth. v. Beverly Enters., 247 Ga. 64 , 274 S.E.2d 324 (1981).

An Act of the General Assembly carries a strong presumption of constitutionality, and therefore should not be set aside unless it "plainly and palpably" conflicts with a constitutional provision. City of Atlanta v. Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Auth., 636 F.2d 1084 (5th Cir. 1981).

Statute must be construed with reference to whole system of which it is a part. Allison v. Domain, 158 Ga. App. 542 , 281 S.E.2d 299 (1981).

Construction which will give effect to a statute or rule is preferred to a construction which will destroy it. Brown v. State Merit Sys. of Personnel Admin., 245 Ga. 239 , 264 S.E.2d 186 (1980).

That construction which will uphold a statute in whole and in every part is preferred. Exum v. City of Valdosta, 246 Ga. 169 , 269 S.E.2d 441 (1980).

Subdivision (d)(3) has no application in criminal prosecution. - In a prosecution of a county deputy for sexual battery and false imprisonment, an indictment filed on May 30, 2014, two years after the incidents that took place on May 30, 2012, was filed a day after the expiration of the statute of limitation, O.C.G.A. § 17-3-1(e) ; O.C.G.A. § 1-3-1(d)(3) did not apply in a criminal prosecution. State v. Dorsey, 342 Ga. App. 188 , 802 S.E.2d 61 (2017).

Specific sentencing provisions controlled over general sentencing provisions. - Pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 16-13-31 (g)(1), the trial court lacked the authority to probate or suspend sentences imposed against two defendants in unrelated criminal actions, and neither the 2004 nor the 2006 amendments to the general sentencing provisions under O.C.G.A. § 17-10-1(a)(1) were relevant; moreover, because O.C.G.A. §§ 17-10-6.1 and 17-10-6.2 were statutes that defined certain categories of crimes and provided the sentencing guidelines for those categories, it did not appear that the list of these two exceptions normally would have included § 16-13-31 or any other specific criminal statute, and any omission would be significant only with regard to a statute that defined classes or categories of crimes. Gillen v. State, 286 Ga. App. 616 , 649 S.E.2d 832 (2007), cert. denied, No. S07C1780, 2007 Ga. LEXIS 809 (Ga. 2007).

Courts not to "read out" part of statute. - It is contrary to the generally accepted principles for construing statutes to "read out" any part of the statute as "mere surplusage" unless there is a clear reason for doing so. Porter v. Food Giant, Inc., 198 Ga. App. 736 , 402 S.E.2d 766 (1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 980, 112 S. Ct. 582 , 116 L. Ed. 2 d 607 (1991).

Construction which renders ordinance or resolution valid preferred. - In construing an ordinance or resolution of a governmental unit, if the language is susceptible of more than one construction, that construction is preferred which will render it valid rather than invalid. Mayor of Hapeville v. Anderson, 246 Ga. 786 , 272 S.E.2d 713 (1980).

It is courts' duty to put construction upon statutes, if possible, and to uphold them and carry them into effect. Lamons v. Yarbrough, 206 Ga. 50 , 55 S.E.2d 551 (1949).

It is the duty of the court in construing an ambiguous statute to give it a construction, if the language permits, that will sustain the Act, rather than a construction that will render it invalid. Jones v. City of College Park, 223 Ga. 778 , 158 S.E.2d 384 (1967).

Act's constitutionality determined by examining Act existing at time of offense. - The constitutionality of an Act of the General Assembly must be determined by the examination of the Act as it existed at the time of the alleged offense, not by an examination of an isolated section of the Code. Stewart v. State, 246 Ga. 70 , 268 S.E.2d 906 (1980).

Statutes construed in connection and in harmony with existing law. - All statutes are presumed to be enacted by the General Assembly with full knowledge of the existing condition of the law and with reference to it. New statutes are therefore to be construed in connection and in harmony with the existing law. McPherson v. City of Dawson, 221 Ga. 861 , 148 S.E.2d 298 (1966).

All statutes are presumed to be enacted by the General Assembly with full knowledge of the existing condition of the law and with reference to it; new statutes are to be construed in connection and in harmony with the existing law, and their meaning and effect will be determined in connection with not only the common law and the Constitution, but also with reference to other statutes and the decisions of the courts. State v. Davis, 246 Ga. 761 , 272 S.E.2d 721 (1980); Allison v. Domain, 158 Ga. App. 542 , 281 S.E.2d 299 (1981); Wigley v. Hambrick, 193 Ga. App. 903 , 389 S.E.2d 763 (1989).

When O.C.G.A. §§ 15-11-40(b) , 15-11-63(e)(1)(D) and (e)(2)(c) were read together to effectuate their meaning, as required by O.C.G.A. § 1-3-1(a) , the juvenile court did not err in denying a juvenile's motion to commute or reduce the sentence imposed, as allegations that the juvenile was rehabilitated while in restrictive custody and would benefit from being released were insufficient to grant the juvenile court authority to modify its commitment order once physical custody of the juvenile was transferred to the Department of Juvenile Justice. In the Interest of J.V., 282 Ga. App. 319 , 638 S.E.2d 757 (2006).

A statute must be viewed so as to make all its parts harmonize and to give a sensible and intelligent effect to each part. Osborn v. State, 161 Ga. App. 132 , 291 S.E.2d 22 (1982).

Construction cannot render statute meaningless. - Construing O.C.G.A. § 16-10-94(c) , and in order to avoid rendering the terms "and involving another person" meaningless, the court had to interpret that language as imposing felony punishment when the person committed the tampering offense involving the prosecution or defense of a third person; hence, because the state did not present any allegations or evidence indicating that the defendant committed the tampering offense to prevent the apprehension or prosecution of anyone other than the defendant, the felony sentence imposed was void, and had to be vacated. English v. State, 282 Ga. App. 552 , 639 S.E.2d 551 (2006).

Courts cannot construe plain statutes. - If a statute is plain and susceptible of but one construction, the courts have no authority to place a different construction on it, but must apply it according to its terms. Thompson v. Georgia Power Co., 73 Ga. App. 587 , 37 S.E.2d 622 (1946).

Courts of last resort must frequently construe the language of a statute, but they may not substitute by judicial interpretation language of their own for the clear, unambiguous language of the statute, so as to change the meaning. Frazier v. Southern Ry., 200 Ga. 590 , 37 S.E.2d 774 (1946).

Where the language of an Act is plain and unequivocal, judicial construction is not only unnecessary but is forbidden. City of Jesup v. Bennett, 226 Ga. 606 , 176 S.E.2d 81 (1970).

Certain express requirements must be spelled out in statute. - A county historic preservation commission's decision was not void because the commission did not have seven members as required by an ordinance. Neither the ordinance nor the Historical Preservation Act, O.C.G.A. § 44-10-20 et seq., provided that failure to have seven active members invalidated a decision; such an express requirement was necessary under O.C.G.A. § 1-3-1(c) . DeKalb County v. Buckler, 288 Ga. App. 346 , 654 S.E.2d 193 (2007), cert. denied, No. S08C0514, 2008 Ga. LEXIS 374 (Ga. 2008).

Gender references. - For construction purposes, the state's act of merely tracking the language of O.C.G.A. § 16-10-24(a) , which itself used the masculine pronoun "his" to include the feminine gender, did not result in a fatal variance between the evidence at trial and the allegations of the accusation, in a case involving a female officer, entitling both defendants to a directed verdict on the charges of which the defendants were eventually convicted. Curtis v. State, 285 Ga. App. 298 , 645 S.E.2d 705 (2007).

Plain and ordinary meaning. - It is a fundamental principle of statutory construction that the court must give words their plain and ordinary meaning, pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 1-3-1(b) ; therefore, because O.C.G.A. § 9-12-61 recites explicitly that revival of a dormant judgment may be accomplished by "an action" within three years of when the judgment became dormant, not by "a judgment" within that time period, the General Assembly intended that dormant judgments could be revived during a three year period thereafter by bringing an action into existence, i.e., filing an action. Magnum Communs. Ltd. v. Samoluk, 275 Ga. App. 177 , 620 S.E.2d 439 (2005).

In an action in which the plaintiff consumer filed a complaint under the Georgia Fair Business Practices Act (FBPA), O.C.G.A. § 10-1-390 et seq., and the Georgia Unfair or Deceptive Practices Toward the Elderly Act, O.C.G.A. § 10-1-850 et seq., and the lender argued for dismissal because the language of O.C.G.A. § 10-1-851 required conduct directed at more than one elderly person, the argument was rejected; consistent with O.C.G.A. § 1-3-1(d)(6), and the use of plurals or the singular form in O.C.G.A. §§ 10-1-850 , 10-1-852 , and 10-1-853 , O.C.G.A. § 10-1-851 required only a showing that FBPA was violated against one elderly person. Kitchen v. Ameriquest Mortg. Co., F. Supp. 2d (N.D. Ga. Apr. 29, 2005).

Trial court properly reversed a decision by the Georgia Workers' Compensation Appellate Division and reinstated a decision of an administrative law judge who found that an employee suffered a "catastrophic injury" for purposes of O.C.G.A. § 34-9-200.1(g)(6), as the employee was unable to perform the prior work done, although the employee was able to perform other work available in substantial numbers within the national economy; the relevant provision of O.C.G.A. § 34-9-200.1(g)(6) used "or" between the two types of work that an employee could perform rather than "and" and that phraseology was deemed unambiguous, plain, and capable of having only one meaning, based on statutory interpretation rules under O.C.G.A. § 1-3-1(a) and legislative changes over time to O.C.G.A. § 34-9-200.1(g)(6). Rite-Aid Corp. v. Davis, 280 Ga. App. 522 , 634 S.E.2d 480 (2006).

Under the plain and ordinary language of O.C.G.A. § 17-6-72(d)(1), a bondsman who failed to assist in the arrest of the principal of its bond was not entitled to a 50 percent remission of the bond, and the district attorney's consent to the bondsman's motion had no legal effect, as such was not accepted by the trial court. Joe Ray Bonding Co. v. State of Ga., 284 Ga. App. 687 , 644 S.E.2d 501 (2007).

Pursuant to the cardinal rule of statutory construction of O.C.G.A. § 1-3-1(a) , the plaintiffs had no standing to challenge the facial constitutionality of O.C.G.A. § 16-11-34.2(b)(2) and (b)(4), the funeral picketing statute, because the plaintiffs admitted that the plaintiffs did not intend to impede, disrupt, or interfere with any funerals; thus, without mens rea, there was no real risk of being prosecuted and the plaintiffs had not been threatened with arrest. Hood v. Perdue, 540 F. Supp. 2d 1350 (N.D. Ga. 2008).

In construing conflicting legitimation statutes, which permitted a jury trial (O.C.G.A. § 19-7-22 ), with paternity statute, which expressly prohibited a jury trial (O.C.G.A. § 19-7-40 ), and due to the fact that the two proceedings were consolidated, the legislative ban on jury trials provided for in the paternity statute had to prevail as to hold otherwise would allow a party to thwart the paternity statute's goals of identifying the father and making sure the father paid child support. Banks v. Hopson, 275 Ga. 758 , 571 S.E.2d 730 (2002).

"Bribery" has clear definition. - Within the context of O.C.G.A. § 16-10-2 (a)(2), it is only "gifts" which are excepted from the purview thereof and not "bribes," no matter how small the amount involved; accordingly, where a trial court construed § 16-10-2 and held that small amounts of cash that added up to less than $100, which were accepted by defendant, a detention officer, from inmates, were specifically excepted from the offense of bribery, it did not construe the statute using the ordinary meaning of the words pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 1-3-1(b) , which was error. State v. Fortner, 264 Ga. App. 783 , 592 S.E.2d 454 (2003).

Statute shall be construed so as to give full force and effect to all provisions and so as to reconcile any apparent conflicts. Head v. H.J. Russell Constr. Co., 152 Ga. App. 864 , 264 S.E.2d 313 (1980).

Noscitur a sociis is a familiar rule of construction, and so as to reconcile any apparent conflicts. Head v. H.J. Russell Constr. Co., 152 Ga. App. 864 , 264 S.E.2d 313 (1980).

Any portion of body of laws may be invoked to ascertain meaning of another part. Royal Indem. Co. v. Agnew, 66 Ga. App. 377 , 18 S.E.2d 57 (1941).

Clause's meaning manifested by context and subject matter. - The meaning of a clause in a statute depends upon the intention with which it is used as manifested by the context and considered with reference to the subject matter to which it relates. Thomas v. MacNeill, 200 Ga. 418 , 37 S.E.2d 705 (1946).

Rule ejusdem generis set forth in section. - The rule ejusdem generis, to the effect that general terms following specific terms are confined to the same kind, is set forth in this section. Gore v. State, 79 Ga. App. 696 , 54 S.E.2d 669 (1949).

"May" sometimes construed as mandatory. - In statutory construction, "may" is construed as mandatory when the statute concerns the public interest, or affects the rights of third persons. Great N. Nekoosa Corp. v. Board of Tax Assessors, 244 Ga. 624 , 261 S.E.2d 346 (1979).

Statutes generally receive prospective rather than retrospective application. - Statutes framed in general terms and not plainly indicating the contrary will be construed prospectively, so as to apply to persons, subjects, and things within their purview and scope coming into existence subsequent to their enactment. Undercofler v. Swint, 111 Ga. App. 117 , 140 S.E.2d 894 (1965).

Repeal of valid statute by implication. - A valid subsisting statute is not repealed by implication by a later Act unless they are generally inconsistent or unless the later Act covers the entire field of the former legislation. Taylor v. R.O.A. Motors, Inc., 108 Ga. App. 635 , 134 S.E.2d 486 (1963).

Repeals by implication are not favored by law, and a subsequent statute repeals prior legislative Acts by implication only when they are clearly and indubitably contradictory, when they are in irreconcilable conflict with each other, and when they cannot reasonably stand together. Sutton v. Garmon, 245 Ga. 685 , 266 S.E.2d 497 (1980).

Statutory remedy in derogation of the common law must be strictly pursued. Haralson v. Speer, 1 Ga. App. 573 , 58 S.E. 142 (1907); Seaboard Air-Line Ry. v. Bishop, 132 Ga. 71 , 63 S.E. 1103 (1909).

Each case involving judicial transaction of sections stands on own facts. - A section involving civil law is frequently a compendium of the legal technique involved in the subject matter in question. The translation of sections is reflected by the courts in decisions rendered relative to the sections and are sometimes seemingly paradoxical, but a sincere student of the law will be able to readily discern and agree that in many fields of law each case must stand upon its own facts. Bromberg v. Drake, 91 Ga. App. 118 , 85 S.E.2d 160 (1954).

Construction is not for jury. - What is proper construction to be given to a statute is for court and not for jury. City of Fitzgerald v. Newcomer, 162 Ga. App. 646 , 291 S.E.2d 766 (1982).

Legislative Intent

Courts must look diligently for intention of the General Assembly in enacting the legislation under review. Vickery v. Foster, 74 Ga. App. 167 , 39 S.E.2d 90 (1946), rev'd on other grounds, 202 Ga. 55 , 42 S.E.2d 117 (1947), rev'd on other grounds, 202 Ga. 55 , 42 S.E.2d 117 (1947).

The cardinal rule for the construction of statutes is to try to ascertain the intent of the General Assembly. Lamons v. Yarbrough, 206 Ga. 50 , 55 S.E.2d 551 (1949).

The cardinal rule to guide the construction of law is, first, to ascertain the legislative intent and purpose in enacting the law, and then to give it that construction which will effectuate the legislative intent and purpose. City of Jesup v. Bennett, 226 Ga. 606 , 176 S.E.2d 81 (1970); Hollowell v. Jove, 247 Ga. 678 , 279 S.E.2d 430 (1981).

The cardinal rule in the construction of statutes is to look for the intention of the General Assembly, and the intention when ascertained must be carried into effect. Moss v. Bishop, 235 Ga. 616 , 221 S.E.2d 38 (1975), overruled on other grounds, Shaheen v. Dunaway Drug Stores, Inc., 246 Ga. 790 , 273 S.E.2d 158 (1980).

It is the duty of courts in the construction of statutes to give effect to the intention of the General Assembly when it is ascertainable. Parker v. Ryder Truck Lines, 150 Ga. App. 163 , 257 S.E.2d 18 (1979).

The cardinal rule in the construction of legislative enactments is to ascertain the true intention of the General Assembly in the passage of the law. Board of Trustees v. Christy, 246 Ga. 553 , 272 S.E.2d 288 (1980), overruled on other grounds, 278 Ga. 166 , 598 S.E.2d 456 (2004).

It is fundamental that courts must look to the purpose and intent of the General Assembly and construe the law to implement that intent. Wilson v. Board of Regents, 246 Ga. 649 , 272 S.E.2d 496 (1980).

In interpreting statutes, courts must look for the intent of the legislature and construe statutes to effectuate that intent; all words, except words of art, shall be given their ordinary significance. City of Roswell v. City of Atlanta, 261 Ga. 657 , 410 S.E.2d 28 (1991).

Construction of a statute must square with common sense and sound reasoning. Blalock v. State, 166 Ga. 465 , 143 S.E. 426 (1928).

Language in an ordinance will be given a reasonable and sensible interpretation in order to carry out the legislative intent and render an ordinance valid. Mayor of Hapeville v. Anderson, 246 Ga. 786 , 272 S.E.2d 713 (1980).

When section plain and positive, court cannot construe legislative intent. - Just as is the rule in construing statutes, where a section is plain, unambiguous, and positive, and is not capable of two constructions, the court is not authorized to construe it according to what is supposed to be the intention of the General Assembly. Atlanta & W.P.R.R. v. Wise, 190 Ga. 254 , 9 S.E.2d 63 (1940).

Courts are not controlled by literal meaning of law in arriving at intention of General Assembly. State v. Brantley, 147 Ga. App. 569 , 249 S.E.2d 365 (1978).

Intention of the General Assembly, when discovered, shall prevail. Akin v. Freeman, 49 Ga. 51 (1873).

Statutes are not contracts, and it is intent of the General Assembly and not of any other "party" which is decisive in their construction. City of Fitzgerald v. Newcomer, 162 Ga. App. 646 , 291 S.E.2d 766 (1982).

When intention is ascertained, it governs, and mere letter of statute must yield to spirit. Roberts v. State, 4 Ga. App. 207 , 60 S.E. 1082 (1908). see also Demere v. Germania Bank, 116 Ga. 317 , 42 S.E. 488 (1902); Youmans v. State, 7 Ga. App. 101 , 66 S.E. 383 (1909).

Intention governs and this is true even though some of the verbiage may have to be eliminated from the text. Washington v. Atlantic Coast Line R.R., 136 Ga. 638 , 71 S.E. 1066 , 38 L.R.A. (n.s.) 867 (1911).

The intention of the General Assembly is the cardinal guide to a construction of statutes, and when it is plainly collected, it should be carried into effect, though contrary to the literal sense of terms. Thacker v. Morris, 196 Ga. 167 , 26 S.E.2d 329 (1943).

While all parts of a statute should be preserved, yet a cardinal rule of construction is that the legislative intent shall be effectuated, even though some verbiage may have to be eliminated. The legislative intent should prevail over the literal import of the words. Jones v. City of College Park, 223 Ga. 778 , 158 S.E.2d 384 (1967).

The real legislative intention, when collected with certainty, will always, in statutes, prevail over the literal sense of terms. City of Jesup v. Bennett, 226 Ga. 606 , 176 S.E.2d 81 (1970).

Statute not construed literally where legislative purpose defeated. - An exception to the general rule that the use of plain and unequivocal language in a legislative enactment obviates any necessity for judicial construction is presented by the use of words the meaning of which in general acceptation is apparently obvious, and yet the purpose of the General Assembly would be defeated were the words employed construed literally. Bibb County v. Hancock, 211 Ga. 429 , 86 S.E.2d 511 (1955).

Where to construe an Act of the General Assembly in a particular way would, while hewing to its literal terms, result in defeating the obvious legislative purposes and intent, such construction will not be given where an obvious typographical or clerical error can be corrected so as to carry out the intent. City of Jesup v. Bennett, 226 Ga. 606 , 176 S.E.2d 81 (1970).

Courts may construe the language employed in the Act in connection with the context, and ascertain the legislative intent as derived from the old law, the evil, and the remedy, and will not defeat the intention and purpose of the General Assembly by giving effect to words which would render the purpose of the General Assembly in the passage of the enactment futile, unenforceable, or ineffectual. Board of Trustees v. Christy, 246 Ga. 553 , 272 S.E.2d 288 (1980).

Courts obligated to refrain from ascribing unreasonable intention to General Assembly. - Even though the literal language of an Act may be plain and unequivocal, it is the duty of the courts, in determining the legislative intent, to refrain from ascribing to the General Assembly a wholly unreasonable intention or an intention to do a futile and useless thing. City of Jesup v. Bennett, 226 Ga. 606 , 176 S.E.2d 81 (1970).

It is the duty of the court to consider the results and consequences of any proposed construction and not so construe a statute that will result in unreasonable or absurd consequences not contemplated by the General Assembly. GECC v. Brooks, 242 Ga. 109 , 249 S.E.2d 596 (1978).

A court may decline to give a legislative Act such construction as will attribute to the General Assembly an intention to pass an Act which is not reasonable, or as will defeat the purpose of the proposed legislation. Board of Trustees v. Christy, 246 Ga. 553 , 272 S.E.2d 288 (1980).

Statute's general language restrained where absurdity results. - To give effect to the intention of the General Assembly, courts are not controlled by the literal meaning of the language of the statute, but the spirit or intention of the law prevails over the letter thereof. Where the letter of the statute results in absurdity or injustice or would lead to contradictions, the meaning of general language may be restrained by the spirit or reason of the statute. Sirmans v. Sirmans, 222 Ga. 202 , 149 S.E.2d 101 (1966).

Preservation of Act preferred. - It is the duty of the court to arrive at the legislative intent, and, in doing so, it should not adopt an arbitrary rule that the General Assembly intended to make a typographical or clerical error, the result of which would be to make nonsense of the Act and not carry out the legislative scheme, but to destroy it. Lamons v. Yarbrough, 206 Ga. 50 , 55 S.E.2d 551 (1949).

The construction of a statute which will give effect to legislative intent and preserve the Act is preferred to a construction which will necessarily destroy it. Webb v. Echols, 211 Ga. 724 , 88 S.E.2d 625 (1955).

Statute's intent not defeated where mistaken reference to another statute. - In case of a mistake in a reference in a statute to another statute, where the real intent of the General Assembly is manifest and would be defeated by an adherence to the terms of the mistaken reference, and the Act is otherwise a complete Act within itself, the mistaken reference will be regarded as surplusage, or will be read and corrected, in order to give effect to the legislative intent. Humthlett v. Reeves, 211 Ga. 210 , 85 S.E.2d 25 (1954).

Where an Act references another statute by mistake, such error will not defeat the Act if the intent of the legislation is clear. Wilson v. Board of Regents, 246 Ga. 649 , 272 S.E.2d 496 (1980).

Legislation's scheme and purport criterion for determining enactment's meaning. - One proper criterion for determining the meaning of a legislative enactment is to consider the general scheme and purport of the proposed legislation. Pennington & Evans v. Douglas, A. & G. Ry., 3 Ga. App. 665 , 60 S.E. 485 (1908).

Old law, mischief, and remedy considered at arriving at legislative intention. - This section directs that statutes be construed with reference to the intention of the General Assembly, and that the old law, the mischief, and the remedy be considered to arrive at that intention. Everett v. Planters' Bank, 61 Ga. 38 (1878); Mott v. Central R.R., 70 Ga. 680 , 48 Am. R. 595 (1883); Barrett & Caswell v. Pulliam, 77 Ga. 552 (1886); Price Co. v. City of Atlanta, 105 Ga. 358 , 31 S.E. 619 (1898); Hazlehurst v. Seaboard Air-Line Ry., 118 Ga. 858 , 45 S.E. 703 (1903); Sullivan v. Curling, 149 Ga. 96 , 99 S.E. 533 , 5 A.L.R. 124 (1919); Georgia Ry. & Elec. Co. v. Town of Decatur, 29 Ga. App. 653 , 116 S.E. 645 (1923).

To ascertain the intention of the General Assembly, after examining the words of the Act itself, it is necessary to take into view every fact and circumstance that influenced its passage. The court must consider what the law was before, the mischiefs against which the law did not provide, the nature of the remedy proposed, and the true reason of the remedy. McGuire v. McGuire, 228 Ga. 782 , 187 S.E.2d 859 (1972).

Where section codified from court decision, construed to conform to existing law. - Where a section has been codified from a decision of the Supreme Court or of the Court of Appeals, the section will be construed, insofar as is compatible with its terms, so as to conform to the then existing law. Atlanta & W.P.R.R. v. Wise, 190 Ga. 254 , 9 S.E.2d 63 (1940).

Act as enrolled controls over appearance in printed volume. - Where there is a conflict between the language of an Act of the General Assembly as it is enrolled and as it appears in the volume published by the public printer, the former controls. Bass v. Doughty, 5 Ga. App. 458 , 63 S.E. 516 (1909).

General Assembly's intention derivable from Acts caption. - Nothing is better settled than that the intention of the General Assembly in the passage of a law is derivable as well from the caption of the Act as from the body of the Act itself. Sovereign Camp Woodmen of the World v. Beard, 26 Ga. App. 130 , 105 S.E. 629 , cert. denied, 26 Ga. App. 801 (1921).

All words of General Assembly, however numerous, ought to be preserved, and effect given to whole, if it can be done. No doubt courts could sometimes better legislation by rejecting some of the words delivered to them by the General Assembly for construction, but to do this, courts have no power. Butterworth v. Butterworth, 227 Ga. 301 , 180 S.E.2d 549 (1971).

All words of General Assembly, however numerous, ought to be preserved, and effect given to whole, if it can be done. No doubt courts could sometimes better legislation by rejecting some of the words delivered to them by the Legislature for construction, but to do this, courts have no power. Butterworth v. Butterworth, 227 Ga. 301 , 180 S.E.2d 549 (1971).

In the construction of a statute the legislative intent must be determined from a consideration of it as a whole. Board of Trustees v. Christy, 246 Ga. 553 , 272 S.E.2d 288 (1980).

Larger and more extensive statutory expression controls. - Where a particular expression in one part of a statute is not so extensive or large in its import as other expressions in the same statute, it must yield to the larger and more extensive expression, where the latter embodies the real intent of the General Assembly. Board of Trustees v. Christy, 246 Ga. 553 , 272 S.E.2d 288 (1980).

Where there is apparent conflict between different sections of same statute, the duty of a court is to reconcile them, if possible, so as to make them consistent and harmonious with one another, and if they cannot be so reconciled, the one which best conforms to the legislative intent must stand. Board of Trustees v. Christy, 246 Ga. 553 , 272 S.E.2d 288 (1980).

One of two provisos should not be rejected as senseless or superfluous. - The rule of construction that effect is to be given to all the words of a statute forbids that two provisos should be treated as having no more scope or significance than one of them would have if standing alone. It is better to wait for a legislative amendment than to arbitrarily reject one of the provisos as senseless or superfluous. Butterworth v. Butterworth, 227 Ga. 301 , 180 S.E.2d 549 (1971).

Severability clause creates presumption of separability. - The presence of a severability clause in an Act reverses the usual presumption that the General Assembly intends the Act to be an entirety and creates an opposite presumption of separability. City Council v. Mangelly, 243 Ga. 358 , 254 S.E.2d 315 (1979).

Legislative intent may be gathered from construing together section and Acts affecting it. Commissioners of Rds. & Revenues v. Burns, 118 Ga. 112 , 44 S.E. 828 (1903).

Statutes "in pari materia" construed together. - It is an elementary rule of statutory construction that a statute must be construed in relation to other statutes of which it is a part, and all statutes relating to the same subject matter, briefly called statutes "in pari materia," are construed together and harmonized wherever possible, so as to ascertain the legislative intendment and give effect thereto. Ryan v. Commissioners of Chatham County, 203 Ga. 730 , 48 S.E.2d 86 (1948).

In the construction of a statute, all laws in pari materia should be considered in order to ascertain the intention of the General Assembly. Undercofler v. L.C. Robinson & Sons, 111 Ga. App. 411 , 141 S.E.2d 847 , aff'd, 221 Ga. 391 , 144 S.E.2d 755 (1965).

Except where language clear. - Statutes in pari materia may not be resorted to where language under consideration is clear, but where the terms of the statute to be construed are ambiguous or its significance is of a doubtful character, it becomes necessary to give proper consideration to other related statutes in order to ascertain the legislative intent in reference to the whole system of laws of which the doubtful statute is a part. Butterworth v. Butterworth, 227 Ga. 301 , 180 S.E.2d 549 (1971).

Unclear law construed in light of whole system of laws. - While the Supreme Court recognizes the rule that statutes in pari materia may not be resorted to where the language of the statute under consideration is clear, it is equally as well settled that, where the terms of the statute to be construed are ambiguous or its significance is of a doubtful character, it becomes necessary to give proper consideration to other related statutes in order to ascertain the legislative intent in reference to the whole system of laws of which the doubtful statute is a part. Ryan v. Commissioners of Chatham County, 203 Ga. 730 , 48 S.E.2d 86 (1948).

Penal statutes are strictly construed, yet not so as to defeat General Assembly's intention. Holland v. State, 34 Ga. 455 (1866). see also Atlantic Coast Line R.R. v. State, 135 Ga. 545 , 69 S.E. 725 , 32 L.R.A. (n.s.) 20 (1910), aff'd, 234 U.S. 280, 34 S. Ct. 829 , 58 L. Ed. 1312 (1914), aff'd, 234 U.S. 280, 34 S. Ct. 829 , 58 L. Ed. 1312 (1914).

It is general rule that tax laws are strictly construed against government and in favor of the citizen (Georgia Paper Stock Co. v. State Tax Bd., 174 Ga. 816 , 164 S.E. 197 (1932)); but the cardinal rule is to ascertain the intention of the General Assembly in passing the legislation. O'Neal v. Whitley, 177 Ga. 491 , 170 S.E. 376 (1933).

Purpose of new civil procedure provision to speed up civil actions. - One of the evils of the old law of civil procedure was that it was regarded as being too slow, and one of the purposes of the new law is to speed up civil actions. Scott v. State, 75 Ga. App. 684 , 44 S.E.2d 391 (1947).

Appropriation Act referring to unenacted authorizing bill. - Where, in enacting a line item of the "General Appropriations Act," reference was made to an authorizing senate bill which was never enacted, but the legislative history was clear that the principles of that bill were enacted into law under a bill by another number and became former Code 1933, § 88-1825 (see now O.C.G.A. § 31-7-95 ), the Act was valid. Wilson v. Board of Regents, 246 Ga. 649 , 272 S.E.2d 496 (1980).

Construction with homestead exemption statute. - Chapter 7 trustee's objection to a debtor's claim for a $20,000 exemption in debtor's residence under the Georgia homestead exemption statute, O.C.G.A. § 44-13-100(a)(1), was overruled because: (1) O.C.G.A. § 1-3-1 did not invite a court to usurp the power of the General Assembly by legislating from the bench each time the exemption statute created an unusual result; (2) the duration of the debtor's separation from the debtor's wife, while indicative of a desire to discontinue the traditional role of spouse, was not determinative of a circumstance that would authorize the court to consider such a person as an entity other than a "spouse" as used in the homestead exemption statute; and (3) there was no basis for inferring legislative intent to allow married couples, whether they lived together or separately, to spread a $20,000 exemption across multiple residences. In re Green, 319 Bankr. 913 (Bankr. M.D. Ga. 2004).

Construction with O.C.G.A. § 9-11-6 . - Because the responding party timely responded to a summary judgment motion, pursuant to Ga. Unif. Super. Ct. R. 6.3, given the appellate court's construction of both O.C.G.A. §§ 1-3-1 and 9-11-6 , the trial court erred in denying that party oral argument on the motion and in granting summary judgment to the movant. Green v. Raw Deal, Inc., 290 Ga. App. 464 , 659 S.E.2d 856 (2008).

Words' Signification

Enactment of legislation requiring judicial definitions constitutional. - One of the traditional functions of courts is to interpret and construe legislative enactments. There is no due process prohibition on the enactment of legislation which requires definitions to be provided by the judiciary. Bell v. Barrett, 241 Ga. 103 , 243 S.E.2d 40 (1978).

Statute's words, if of common use, are taken in natural and ordinary signification. Price Co. v. City of Atlanta, 105 Ga. 358 , 31 S.E. 619 (1898); Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Parker, 119 Ga. 721 , 47 S.E. 194 (1904); Robinson v. State, 11 Ga. App. 847 , 76 S.E. 1061 (1912); Gatlin v. State, 18 Ga. App. 9 , 89 S.E. 345 (1915).

By the mandate of this section, the courts are required to give a word its ordinary signification. Thompson v. Eastern Air Lines, 200 Ga. 216 , 39 S.E.2d 225 (1946).

The intention of the General Assembly is to be gathered from the statute as a whole so as to give effect to each of its parts and at the same time harmonize, if possible, the component parts, and in determining this intention, the words of the statute are to be given their ordinary and usual signification. In re Ga. Air, Inc., 345 F. Supp. 636 (N.D. Ga. 1972).

Although a statute does not undertake to define each of the words contained therein, this will not automatically render the statute vague, indefinite, or uncertain in meaning, since the ordinary signification shall be applied to all words, except words of art or words connected with a particular trade or subject matter. Anderson v. Little & Davenport Funeral Home, 242 Ga. 751 , 251 S.E.2d 250 (1978).

Every word employed should be expounded in its plain, obvious, and commonsense meaning unless something else furnishes ground to control, qualify, or enlarge it. Wellborn v. Estes, 70 Ga. 390 (1883). ; see also Booth v. Saffold, 46 Ga. 278 (1872); Mott v. Central R.R., 70 Ga. 680 , 48 Am. R. 595 (1883); Richmond & D.R.R. v. Howard, 79 Ga. 44 , 3 S.E. 426 (1887).

Absent words of limitation, statutory words should be given ordinary and everyday meaning. Risser v. City of Thomasville, 248 Ga. 866 , 286 S.E.2d 727 (1982).

In construing a constitutional provision, the ordinary signification shall be applied to words. Thomas v. MacNeill, 200 Ga. 418 , 37 S.E.2d 705 (1946).

In construing statutes, their ordinary signification shall be applied to all words, except in certain defined cases. The same rule of construction is applicable to constitutional provisions. Jones v. Darby, 174 Ga. 71 , 161 S.E. 835 (1931).

Construing statutory part out of context inadmissible. - It is inadmissible to mutilate a statute by lifting a mere segment out of its context and construe it without consideration of all other parts of the Act. In re Ga. Air, Inc., 345 F. Supp. 636 (N.D. Ga. 1972).

"Nominations from the floor shall always be in order" construed. - The words "Nominations from the floor shall always be in order," in a by-law are to be given their ordinary signification, and the plain and obvious meaning of the language employed is that nominations from the floor are always in order until an election has in fact been held. Hornady v. Goodman, 167 Ga. 555 , 146 S.E. 173 (1928).

Term "Common or contract carrier" should be given its ordinary signification in the construction of Ga. L. 1937, Ex. Sess., p. 259 (see now O.C.G.A. § 48-10-2(10)). Undercofler v. L.C. Robinson & Sons, 111 Ga. App. 411 , 141 S.E.2d 847 , aff'd, 221 Ga. 391 , 144 S.E.2d 755 (1965).

"Bona fide" meant genuine or real. - Services provided by an emergency room physician to a patient who presented with a high pressure puncture wound to one hand were "bona fide emergency services" under O.C.G.A. § 51-1-29.5(a)(5), because they were genuine or actual; it was not required that the services be provided in good faith. Abdel-Samed v. Dailey, 294 Ga. 758 , 755 S.E.2d 805 (2014).

A riding lawnmower was not a "motor vehicle" as that term was used in the statute punishing theft of a motor vehicle, O.C.G.A. § 16-8-12(a)(5)(A); a defendant's conviction was reversed. A motor vehicle was defined by the court for purposes of § 16-8-12(a)(5)(A) as a self-propelled vehicle with wheels that was designed to be used, or was ordinarily used, to transport people or property on roads. Harris v. State, 286 Ga. 245 , 686 S.E.2d 777 (2009).

Statutory words are not given ordinary meaning when legislative purpose would be frustrated. - Assuming an ascertainable legislative intention, words should be construed so as to give full effect thereto. Bohannon v. Manhattan Life Ins. Co., 555 F.2d 1205 (5th Cir. 1977).

Use of experts. - It is proper to use experts to give the definition of words of art or words connected with a particular trade or subject matter, such as the correct name for a narcotic. Williamson v. State, 134 Ga. App. 864 , 216 S.E.2d 684 (1975), overruled on other grounds, Cole v. State, 142 Ga. App. 461 , 236 S.E.2d 125 (1977).

Substantial Statutory Compliance

Statute directory where no negative words nor injuries resulting from disregard. - Where a statute directs the doing of a thing in a certain time, without any negative words restraining the doing of it afterwards, generally the provision as to time is directory and not a limitation of authority; and in such case, where no injury appears to have resulted, the fact that the Act was performed after the time limit will not render it invalid. O'Neal v. Spencer, 203 Ga. 588 , 47 S.E.2d 646 (1948); State v. Battise, 177 Ga. App. 583 , 340 S.E.2d 240 (1986); Moreton Rolleston, Jr., Living Trust v. Glynn County Bd. of Tax Assessors, 240 Ga. App. 405 , 523 S.E.2d 600 (1999), cert. denied, 2000 Ga. LEXIS 97 (2000).

Generally, statutes directing the mode of proceeding by public officers, designated to promote method, system uniformity, and dispatch in such proceedings, will be regarded as directory if a disregard thereof will not injure the rights of parties, and the statute does not declare what result shall follow noncompliance therewith, nor contain negative words importing a prohibition of any other mode of proceeding than that prescribed. Collins v. Nix, 125 Ga. App. 520 , 188 S.E.2d 235 (1972); State v. Battise, 177 Ga. App. 583 , 340 S.E.2d 240 (1986).

Substantial compliance by public officers with statutory requirements shall be deemed sufficient. Hart v. Columbus, 125 Ga. App. 625 , 188 S.E.2d 422 (1972).

Reasonable care insufficient. - Where a substantial compliance with a statute by a railway company would be sufficient, the duty of compliance to that extent would be absolute, and the company would not have discharged the duty merely by the exercise of reasonable care to that end. Lime-Cola Bottling Co. v. Atlanta & W.P.R.R., 34 Ga. App. 103 , 128 S.E. 226 (1925).

Question of substantial compliance not for jury. - It should not be left to the jury to determine whether a party could or could not substantially comply with the law. Lime-Cola Bottling Co. v. Atlanta & W.P.R.R., 34 Ga. App. 103 , 128 S.E. 226 (1925).

Statement of costs prepared by judge complies with section. - A statement of costs on record in the court, prepared by the ordinary (now probate court judge), furnished a substantial compliance with the requirements of this section. Cooper v. Lunsford, 203 Ga. 166 , 45 S.E.2d 395 (1947).

Substantial compliance with respect to issuing and serving of process will be sufficient, and where notice is given, no technical or formal objection shall invalidate any process. Gainesville Feed & Poultry Co. v. Waters, 87 Ga. App. 354 , 73 S.E.2d 771 (1952).

It is sufficient if provisions of O.C.G.A. § 5-6-38 are substantially complied with in the notification of appeal process. Oller v. State, 187 Ga. App. 818 , 371 S.E.2d 455 (1988).

Substantial compliance with registration requirement. - Trial court erred in granting a motion to dismiss for failure to have a certificate of authority at the time the complaint was filed since the plaintiff substantially complied with the registration requirements for a foreign corporation by obtaining a certificate of authority later. Health Horizons, Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 239 Ga. App. 440 , 521 S.E.2d 383 (1999), cert. denied, 2000 Ga. LEXIS 35 (2000), cert. denied, 2004 Ga. LEXIS 241 (2004).

Substantial compliance with Georgia Historic Preservation Act. - Because the Georgia Historic Preservation Act (HPA), O.C.G.A. § 44-1-20 et seq., does not expressly provide that a county's failure to strictly comply with the HPA's uniform procedures invalidates an ordinance adopted thereunder, and because the developers failed to show the developers were harmed by the county's alleged failure to strictly comply with the procedures of the HPA, the trial court properly applied the "substantial compliance" standard of review. Buckler v. DeKalb County Bd. of Comm'rs, 299 Ga. App. 465 , 683 S.E.2d 22 (2009), cert. denied, No. S09C2027, 2010 Ga. LEXIS 3 (Ga. 2010).

No prejudice to substantive right as consequence of administrative continuance of hearing. - See Hardison v. Fayssoux, 168 Ga. App. 398 , 309 S.E.2d 397 (1983).

Notice to policyholders. - Evidence that mass mailings were sent to several thousands of policyholders by an insurance company was not substantial compliance with a statutory requirement that optional no-fault insurance coverage was expressly offered to a particular insured. Shave v. Allstate Ins. Co., 549 F. Supp. 1006 (S.D. Ga. 1982).

Tax refund. - The notice of a tax refund claim filed pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 48-5-380 was not deficient, where the notice clearly stated a summary of grounds upon which the taxpayer relied. There is no requirement that the summary of grounds must be the exact grounds upon which refund is ultimately authorized; the notice was in substantial compliance with § 48-5-380 . City of College Park v. Atlantic S.E. Airlines, 194 Ga. App. 637 , 391 S.E.2d 460 (1990).

Substantial compliance not sufficient when statute is unambiguous. - Court of Appeals erred when the court held that a judgment creditor's notification of a judgment debtor of a garnishment eight business days after service of the garnishee substantially complied with O.C.G.A. § 18-4-64(a)(7)'s requirement that notice be given within three business days. O.C.G.A. § 1-3-1 did not apply because the statute was unambiguous. Cook v. NC Two, L.P., 289 Ga. 462 , 712 S.E.2d 831 (2011).

Substantial compliance with legitimation statute, O.C.G.A. § 19-7-22 . - Trial court abused the court's discretion by denying a putative biological father's motion to sever his petition for legitimation of a son from a husband's adoption proceeding because the father's petition substantially complied with the substance of the legitimation statute, O.C.G.A. § 19-7-22 ; the petition contained the requisite information, it was served on the wife, and it was timely filed in the proper court, and the father's failure to file his petition as a separate civil action caused no prejudice to anyone. Brewton v. Poss, 316 Ga. App. 704 , 728 S.E.2d 837 (2012).

Substantial compliance with describing emergency under O.C.G.A. § 36-91-22 . - City was not required to obtain a payment bond in compliance with O.C.G.A. § 36-91-90 because the requirement did not apply to emergency projects, O.C.G.A. § 36-91-22 (e); the city's description in the city's minutes of the "emergency replacement of a 10-inch sanitary sewer main on Embassy Drive" was sufficient to describe the nature of the emergency. City of College Park v. Sekisui SPR Ams., LLC, 331 Ga. App. 404 , 771 S.E.2d 101 (2015), cert. denied, No. S15C1141, 2015 Ga. LEXIS 471 (Ga. 2015).

Bonds

Writing treated as official statutory bond. - A writing, subscribed by the tax collector and several others, intended to be used and treated as the official bond required of the collector, though not under seal, is, by virtue of this section, to be treated as though it were the official statutory bond. Dedge v. Branch, 94 Ga. 37 , 20 S.E. 657 (1894).

Certiorari bond need not be under seal. King & Co. v. Cantrell, 4 Ga. App. 263 , 61 S.E. 144 (1908).

If sheriff's official bond were not under seal, it might be good under this section, but a different statute of limitations might possibly apply. Harris v. Black, 143 Ga. 497 , 85 S.E. 742 (1915).

New, written, signed agreement required to renew bond. - A new agreement is required in order to effectuate a renewal of the original bond, and the new agreement is inadequate for that purpose unless it, like the bond, is in writing and signed by the fidelity company. Nowell v. Mayor of Monroe, 177 Ga. 648 , 171 S.E. 136 (1933).

Securities name need not appear in bond. - See Chapple v. Tucker, 110 Ga. 467 , 35 S.E. 643 (1900).

Census

Most recent United States decennial census is rational, logical, and consistent means of determining population when the word "census" is used in a statute or ordinance. Mayor of Hapeville v. Anderson, 246 Ga. 786 , 272 S.E.2d 713 (1980).

Computation of Time

Provision as to time as directory. - Where a statute directs the doing of a thing in a certain time, without any negative words restraining the doing of it afterwards, generally the provision as to time is directory and not a limitation of authority, and in such case, where no injury appears to have resulted, the fact that the act was performed after the time limit will not render it invalid. Middleton v. Moody, 216 Ga. 237 , 115 S.E.2d 567 (1960); Collins v. Nix, 125 Ga. App. 520 , 188 S.E.2d 235 (1972).

Effect of 1985 amendment on prior cases. - When the Georgia General Assembly amended O.C.G.A. § 1-3-1(d)(3) in 1985, inserting "the first day shall not be counted but the last day shall be counted", the line of pre-1985 cases standing for the proposition that the statute of limitations runs on the two year anniversary of an accident was overruled. Gardner v. Hyster Co., 785 F. Supp. 161 (M.D. Ga. 1992).

When days are to be computed, this provision is applied, and only the first or last day counted, and the last day excluded if it falls on Sunday. McLendon v. State, 14 Ga. App. 274 , 80 S.E. 692 (1914) (decided prior to 1985 amendment providing that the first day not be counted but that the last day shall be counted).

General rule of computation which requires the exclusion of the first day and the inclusion of the last has been made the statutory rule of construction in this state. Tift v. City of Tifton, 214 Ga. 507 , 105 S.E.2d 584 (1958) (decided prior to 1985 amendment providing that the first day not be counted but that the last day shall be counted).

Period of time anterior to commencement of action. - When a computation of a period of time that is anterior to the commencement of an action is required, O.C.G.A. § 1-3-1 is the proper method of computation. Southern Trust Ins. Co. v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 168 Ga. App. 899 , 310 S.E.2d 712 (1983).

Computing number of days for privilege or discharge. - When a number of days is prescribed by law for the exercise of a privilege, or the discharge of a duty, only the first or the last day shall be counted, and in computing the number of days, the first or the last day should be excluded. Sullivan v. Smith, 209 Ga. 325 , 72 S.E.2d 318 (1952) (decided prior to 1985 amendment providing that the first day not be counted but that the last day shall be counted).

Only the first or the last day shall be counted, not both. Blitch v. Brewer, 83 Ga. 333 , 9 S.E. 837 (1889) (decided prior to 1985 amendment providing that the first day not be counted but that the last day shall be counted).

Either the first or the last day must be figured in the computation, but not both of them. Brown v. City of Atlanta, 84 Ga. App. 4 , 65 S.E.2d 611 (1951) (decided prior to 1985 amendment providing that the first day not be counted but that the last day shall be counted).

In computing the time prescribed for the exercising of a privilege or the discharge of a duty, only the first or the last day shall be counted. One or the other, however, must be counted, and it is not intended that both may be left out of the computation. First Nat'l Bank v. Mann, 211 Ga. 706 , 88 S.E.2d 361 (1955) (decided prior to 1985 amendment providing that the first day not be counted but that the last day shall be counted).

Sunday is not a day in law. Brooks v. Hicks, 230 Ga. 500 , 197 S.E.2d 711 (1973).

If last day Sunday, then have until Monday. - Trial court did not abuse the court's discretion in setting aside a default judgment entered in favor of former police officers under O.C.G.A. § 9-11-60(d) because the default judgment was entered despite the fact that the record disclosed that a pension fund board of trustees timely answered the complaint and, thus, there was no basis upon which to claim a default judgment; the board's answer was filed 31 days after service, but because that day was a Monday and the 30th day after service fell on a Sunday, under O.C.G.A. § 1-3-1(d)(3), the answer was timely. Stamey v. Policemen's Pension Fund Bd. of Trs., 289 Ga. 503 , 712 S.E.2d 825 (2011).

Although the defendant's notice of appeal was filed 31 days after the entry of the last order appealed from, the filing was timely because the 30th day fell on a Sunday. Anderson v. State, 335 Ga. App. 78 , 778 S.E.2d 826 (2015), cert. denied, No. S16C0630, 2016 Ga. LEXIS 294 (Ga. 2016).

Sunday makes no difference where nothing to be done. - Where there was nothing to be done on the last day, it makes no difference that it fell on the Sabbath. Merritt v. Gate City Nat'l Bank, 100 Ga. 147 , 27 S.E. 979 , 38 L.R.A. 749 (1897).

If last day allowed for act is both holiday and Sabbath, following Monday is included. Wood v. State, 12 Ga. App. 651 , 78 S.E. 140 (1913).

Day of grace is given to party upon whom the duty is imposed, not to the other party. Gray v. Quality Fin. Co., 130 Ga. App. 762 , 204 S.E.2d 483 (1974).

Service cannot be made, or legal notice given, on Sunday, or the business or work of ordinary callings done. Sawyer v. Cargile, 72 Ga. 290 (1884).

Document's filing on Monday following last day on Sunday within time prescribed. - Thirty days after the adjournment of court being allowed for the filing of the document, and the last day falling on Sunday, the filing on Monday was within the time prescribed. Page v. Blackshear, 75 Ga. 885 (1885).

The 30-day period for filing notice of appeal allowed by O.C.G.A. § 5-6-38(a) ended on November 5, a Saturday, and by operation of O.C.G.A. § 1-3-1 , the appellant had through the following Monday, November 7, to file a timely notice of appeal, but despite the fact that the notice of appeal was dated November 7, it was not filed until November 8. Stancil v. Kendrix, 189 Ga. App. 909 , 378 S.E.2d 417 (1989).

Where the computation is of months or years, this section is not applicable, Sundays are not excluded, and the right is lost unless invoked on or before the day last preceding the day of the month or year corresponding to the day upon which the right accrued. McLendon v. State, 14 Ga. App. 274 , 80 S.E. 692 (1914).

This section does not apply where bar is in terms of years or months rather than in days. Thomas v. Couch, 171 Ga. 602 , 156 S.E. 206 (1930).

This section does not apply where months and years are to be computed. Davis v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co., 119 Ga. App. 374 , 167 S.E.2d 214 (1969).

The provisions of this section do not apply to limitations expressed in months or years. Veal v. Paulk, 121 Ga. App. 575 , 174 S.E.2d 465 (1970).

This section applies only where days are to be counted, and where months and years are to be considered, the rule is not applicable. Gray v. Quality Fin. Co., 130 Ga. App. 762 , 204 S.E.2d 483 (1974).

This section applies only to limitations in terms of days. It does not apply where the limitation is in terms of months or years. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Stephens, 239 Ga. 717 , 238 S.E.2d 382 (1977).

Error in calculation of time for service. - Trial court erred in calculating the five-day period under O.C.G.A. § 9-11-4(c) for service of a client's complaint because the provisions of O.C.G.A. § 1-3-1(d)(3) applied since the five-day requirement was less than seven days; because the client filed the complaint on Friday, August 14, 2009, the client had until Friday, August 21, 2009 in which to achieve service in accordance with O.C.G.A. § 9-11-4(c) since the intervening Saturday and Sunday, August 15 and 16, 2009, were excluded from the calculation of the five-day period. Cleveland v. Katz, 311 Ga. App. 880 , 717 S.E.2d 500 (2011).

Not applicable to limitation fixed for filing workers' compensation claim. - The provisions of this section, to the effect that when a number of days is prescribed for the exercise of any privilege and the last day shall fall on a Saturday or Sunday, the party having the privilege shall have through the following Monday to exercise it, do not apply to limitations expressed in months or years and to the limitation fixed for filing a workers' compensation claim. Chevrolet Parts Div., GMC v. Harrell, 100 Ga. App. 280 , 111 S.E.2d 104 (1959).

When a limitation of years is imposed, expiration takes place at end of yearly period without giving additional consideration to when the last day falls. Gray v. Quality Fin. Co., 130 Ga. App. 762 , 204 S.E.2d 483 (1974).

Section inapplicable where construction of word "between" not required. - Where the word "between" is not subject to interpretation and does not require a construction of the statute, this section has no application. Henderson v. Henderson, 206 Ga. 23 , 55 S.E.2d 578 (1949).

Service of process provision not qualified. - This section does not qualify that part of Code which requires service of process to be consummated at least 15 days before the term, or if it does, that its operation is to add to, and not subtract from, the number of days specified. There is little probability that, where Sunday intervenes, the Code intended to take a day away from a party and give it to the sheriff. Hood v. Powers, 57 Ga. 244 (1876).

From June 12 to September 12, more than three months had elapsed. Barrett & Carswell v. Devine, 60 Ga. 632 (1878).

Service of rule nisi to foreclose mortgage found sufficient. - See English v. Ozburn, 59 Ga. 392 (1877).

Attorney's fees notice. - Where the return day for filing suits in a court is the fifteenth of the month and a petition is filed on that day, a notice to bind for attorney's fees, served on the fifth of the same month, is served "ten days before suit is brought." Marietta Fertilizer Co. v. Benton, 21 Ga. App. 466 , 94 S.E. 657 (1917).

Required notice of discharge hearing not given. - The giving of "five days notice of the time and place of hearing" of a petition for discharge filed by a defendant, who is held in imprisonment in default of bail, is not complied with by serving the plaintiff on the first day of May with notice that the time of hearing the petition will be on the fifth day of May following. From the first day of May to the fifth day of May is only four days. Hardin v. Mutual Clothing Co., 34 Ga. App. 466 , 129 S.E. 907 (1925).

When person knows of suit, should attend at court's first term. - When a person knows that one is sued, it would be well for the person to find out about any mistake in the process and attend at the first term of the court. W.T. Rawleigh Co. v. Watts, 68 Ga. App. 786 , 24 S.E.2d 213 (1943).

Computation of time specified in local statute. - Since, at a time certain local statute was enacted, the provision of this section requiring that only the first or last day shall be counted was in force, the court would presume that the General Assembly intended and understood that the time would be computed in accordance with its provisions, and that the first day would not be counted and that the last day would. Tift v. City of Tifton, 214 Ga. 507 , 105 S.E.2d 584 (1958) (decided prior to 1985 amendment providing that the first day not be counted but that the last day shall be counted).

When an arrestee sued police officers for executing an allegedly expired search warrant at the arrestee's home, the officers were entitled to qualified immunity and, thus, summary judgment dismissing the claim because while O.C.G.A. § 17-5-25 required a search warrant's execution within ten days after the warrant's issuance, it was unclear, as of the warrant's execution, that O.C.G.A. § 1-3-1(d)(3), regarding time computation, did not extend that time period to make that execution timely since the tenth day after the warrant was issued fell on a Sunday, followed by a legal holiday, immediately after which the warrant was executed. Hurley v. City of St. Marys, F. Supp. 2d (S.D. Ga. Jan. 26, 2011).

It was held that a damage action against a municipality was prematurely commenced before the municipality had been allowed the statutory period of 30 days after the claim had been presented when the claim was first presented on October 16, next prior to the filing of the suit on November 15. Grooms v. City of Hawkinsville, 31 Ga. App. 424 , 120 S.E. 807 (1923).

In tort cases, both day of injury and day of filing must be counted in determining whether the action was filed within the period of limitation. David v. Marbut-Williams Lumber Co., 32 Ga. App. 157 , 122 S.E. 906 (1924) (decided prior to 1985 amendment providing that the first day not be counted but that the last day shall be counted).

Injuries to the person. - Paragraph (d)(3) of O.C.G.A. § 1-3-1 , as amended in 1985, governs O.C.G.A. § 9-3-33 , thereby extending the statute of limitations for personal injury actions to two years and one day. Gardner v. Hyster Co., 785 F. Supp. 161 (M.D. Ga. 1992).

Personal injury action filed against heater manufacturer on the second anniversary of the injury was timely under the computation method mandated by paragraph (d)(3) of O.C.G.A. § 1-3-1 and was, therefore, within the two-year period contemplated by O.C.G.A. § 9-3-33 . Davis v. Desa Int'l, Inc., 209 Ga. App. 318 , 433 S.E.2d 410 (1993).

Filing of claim bound by two-year limitation. - Pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 1-3-1(d)(3), the plaintiff had until October 28, 1998, to file an action arising from an incident which occurred on October 27, 1996, for which a two year statute of limitations applied. Reese v. City of Atlanta, 247 Ga. App. 701 , 545 S.E.2d 96 (2001).

Service of an uninsured motorist carrier within five business days after the date of filing of the complaint, in an action for personal injuries, related back to the date of filing as a matter of law, for statute of limitation purposes. Williams v. Colonial Ins. Co., 199 Ga. App. 760 , 406 S.E.2d 99 (1991).

Demurrer found filed within time allowed. - Where the record shows that the defendant was served with a copy of the petition and process on February 14, 1952, and that the defendant filed a general demurrer to the petition on March 15, 1952, with the court taking judicial cognizance of the fact that the month of February, 1952, had 29 days, the demurrer was filed within the 30 days allowed by law. Sullivan v. Smith, 209 Ga. 325 , 72 S.E.2d 318 (1952).

Certificate for review obtained on day after Columbus Day obtained within time. - Where the ten-day limitation to secure the certificate certifying the denial of summary judgment for review would have expired on Sunday, October 11, and Monday, October 12, was Columbus Day, a legal holiday, a certificate for review obtained on October 13 was obtained within time. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Cody, 123 Ga. App. 265 , 180 S.E.2d 596 (1971).

Summary judgment appeal filed on thirty-second day timely. - Because the thirtieth day following an order granting summary judgment fell on Saturday and the following Monday was a state holiday, the time for filing a notice of appeal was extended to the next business day, Tuesday. Dental One Assocs. v. JKR Realty Assocs., 228 Ga. App. 307 , 491 S.E.2d 414 (1997), aff'd, 269 Ga. 616 , 501 S.E.2d 497 (1998).

Presentation of bill of exceptions. - When last day for certifying bill of exceptions falls on Sunday, following day is superadded. Charleston & W.C. Ry. v. Cottonseed Oil Co., 22 Ga. App. 337 , 96 S.E. 586 (1918).

When the last day numerically for presenting the bill of exceptions for certification falls on Sunday, the presentation of the bill to the trial judge for certification upon the next day, Monday, is not too late. Maryland Cas. Co. v. England, 34 Ga. App. 354 , 129 S.E. 446 (1926).

Where the judgment complained of was rendered on May 16, and, not counting May 16, 15 days remained in the month of May, the last day for presenting a bill of exceptions within the time provided by law, 20 days, was June 5. Since June 5 fell on Thursday, and an extra day was not added under the law for the presentation of the bill of exceptions, the bill of exceptions, tendered on Friday, June 6, was not presented to the trial judge within the time prescribed by law, and the Supreme Court was without jurisdiction to pass upon the writ of error. Blair v. Blair, 209 Ga. 347 , 72 S.E.2d 288 (1952).

When last day Saturday. - When, in a condemnation proceeding, the tenth day following an assessor's award falls on a Saturday and the condemnee files an appeal two days thereafter, the entry of a judgment only two days after the award was filed is premature; a condemnee, having exercised the condenmee's right to appeal, is entitled to have a jury determine the value of the property taken or the amount of damage done. McAllister v. City of Jonesboro, 151 Ga. App. 260 , 259 S.E.2d 666 (1979).

Presentation of certiorari petition. - In computing the days in which a petition for certiorari must be presented for sanction, when the last day falls on Sunday, it will be sufficient if the petition is presented for sanction on the following Monday. Wood v. State, 12 Ga. App. 651 , 78 S.E. 140 (1913); Hill v. State, 14 Ga. App. 410 , 81 S.E. 248 (1914).

Where the thirtieth day following the conviction of a defendant in a city court falls on a Sunday, a petition for certiorari filed on the Monday following would not be too late. Brown v. City of Atlanta, 84 Ga. App. 4 , 65 S.E.2d 611 (1951).

Statutory construction applicable to contracts. - Where a contract covers the minimum number of days required by a statute, the construction applicable to statutes necessarily governs the meaning of the contract. Trust Co. v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 124 Ga. App. 465 , 184 S.E.2d 363 (1971).

Paragraph (d)(3) of this section is a rule of statutory construction, and does not apply to contractual limitations; yet, this section states a rule of reason with respect to limitations, be they statutory or contractual, which should be applied to limitations in contracts in the absence of any sound reason for not applying them. Brooks v. Hicks, 230 Ga. 500 , 197 S.E.2d 711 (1973).

By analogy this section applies to contracts as well as statutes where the limitation is in terms of days. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Stephens, 239 Ga. 717 , 238 S.E.2d 382 (1977).

A ten-day notice period required for cancellation of an insurance policy is governed by O.C.G.A. § 1-3-1 for computation of time and not by O.C.G.A. § 9-11-6 which deals exclusively with periods calculated after the commencement of a court proceeding. Southern Trust Ins. Co. v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 168 Ga. App. 899 , 310 S.E.2d 712 (1983).

Paragraph (d)(3) of O.C.G.A. § 1-3-1 was applicable to the one-year suit limitation contained in a renter's insurance policy. Since provisions were in conflict with the statutes of the state the provisions were amended to conform to such statutes. Sanders v. Allstate Ins. Co., 207 Ga. App. 461 , 428 S.E.2d 575 , cert. denied, No. S93C0876, 1993 Ga. LEXIS 428 (1993).

Provision not applicable to voluntarily accepted contractual limitations. - Provisions in paragraph (d)(3) of O.C.G.A. § 1-3-1 regarding extension of time to exercise a privilege have no effect upon voluntarily accepted contractual limitations on the exercise of such privilege. Desai v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am., 173 Ga. App. 815 , 328 S.E.2d 376 (1985).

Construction of time in insurance case. - Where the uncontroverted evidence shows that the property insured was consumed on the morning of the twenty-fourth of January, 1910, the 12-months limitation as to commencement of the action expired at midnight of the twenty-third of January, 1911, and, under this stipulation of the contract, the suit on the policy, which was not commenced until January 24, 1911, was barred. Maxwell Bros. v. Liverpool & London & Globe Ins. Co., 12 Ga. App. 127 , 76 S.E. 1036 (1913); Phillips v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 31 Ga. App. 541 , 121 S.E. 255 (1924).

"Days of election" deemed 24-hour day. - The period of time contemplated by the words "days of election," as used in former Penal Code 1910, § 445, is a day of 24 hours, commencing at midnight preceding the opening of the polls, and ending at midnight succeeding the close of the polls. Rose v. State, 107 Ga. 697 , 33 S.E. 439 (1899).

Failure to provide legally required three-days' notice of upcoming sale is found where a sale is advertised on December 25 to take place on December 27. Marshall v. Armour Fertilizer Works, 24 Ga. App. 402 , 100 S.E. 766 (1919).

Not applicable to limitation fixed for filing materialman's lien. - The method of time computation in paragraph (d)(3) of O.C.G.A. § 1-3-1 did not apply to extend the requirement of O.C.G.A. § 44-14-361(a)(2) that a materialman's lien must be filed within three months of the delivery of materials. United States Filter Distrib. Group, Inc. v. Barnett, 241 Ga. App. 759 , 526 S.E.2d 912 (1999), aff'd, 273 Ga. 254 , 538 S.E.2d 739 (2000).

Service of responses to requests to admit. - Service of responses to requests to admit was timely as calculated pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 1-3-1(d)(3); therefore, the requests were not deemed admitted. The fact that the certificate of service was not filed with the clerk under Ga. Unif. Super. Ct. R. 5.2 until later did not impact the fact that service of the responses was timely. Cruickshank v. Fremont Inv. & Loan, 307 Ga. App. 489 , 705 S.E.2d 298 (2010).

Defamation complaint timely filed. - Natural gas marketer's defamation complaint was timely filed because the complaint was filed on the first anniversary of the date of publication; O.C.G.A. § 1-3-1(d)(3) applies to the one-year statute of limitation for injuries to the reputation found in O.C.G.A. § 9-3-33 , so that the first day shall not be counted in determining whether a claim is timely filed. Infinite Energy, Inc. v. Pardue, 310 Ga. App. 355 , 713 S.E.2d 456 (2011).

Renewal of dismissed action. - Trial court erred by denying a debtor's refiling of an appeal as untimely because the six-month period for filing the debtor's renewal action under O.C.G.A. § 9-2-61(a) began the day after the debtor dismissed the original superior court action, and ran until December 6, 2012, based on the method of calculation under O.C.G.A. § 1-3-1(d)(3), thus, the refiling of the action on December 6 was timely. Parsons v. Capital Alliance Fin., LLC, 325 Ga. App. 884 , 756 S.E.2d 14 (2014).

Gender

In generic sense, term "man" includes "woman," and pronoun "he" includes person of feminine gender. Hightower v. State, 14 Ga. App. 246 , 80 S.E. 684 (1914).

Joint Authority

Majority of officials authorized to act. - Three commissioners, being a majority of five, are competent to act and make an assessment. Stevenson v. State, 69 Ga. 68 (1882).

In drawing a grand jury, the ordinary (now probate court judge) acts as one of the board of jury commissioners, and the ordinary's absence during the drawing of the jury will not render it invalid, a majority of the commissioners being present and acting. Roby v. State, 74 Ga. 812 (1885) (decided under Code 1882, § 3911).

A majority of the members of the board of education of a city had authority to institute mandamus proceedings against the mayor and council of the city. City of Blakely v. Singletary, 138 Ga. 632 , 75 S.E. 1054 (1912).

Where certain relief was sought against seven members of the board of education and its secretary in their official capacity, to require them to perform specific duties as a board of education, these acts could be performed by a majority of the board. Styles v. Waters, 212 Ga. 644 , 94 S.E.2d 702 (1956).

Where a writ of mandamus absolute issues against the members of a board of education, requiring them to perform certain acts in their official capacity, and a majority of such board file a writ of error to the Supreme Court, a majority of the board have the right to withdraw or dismiss, pending final disposition, the writ of error. Styles v. Waters, 212 Ga. 644 , 94 S.E.2d 702 (1956).

Appeal of judgment by less than majority dismissed. - Since a majority of a five-member board is required to initiate an appeal, an appeal of a declaratory judgment by less than a majority must be dismissed. McClure v. Shirley, 227 Ga. 832 , 183 S.E.2d 385 (1971).

Section inapplicable where majority acts with unqualified member. - Where authority was not in fact exercised by the majority of qualified members, but by them in conjunction with another person whose appointment was void, it would not seem that this section would have application. Felker v. City of Monroe, 22 Ga. App. 301 , 95 S.E. 1023 (1918).

Administration of will. - Because former O.C.G.A. § 53-6-24 (11) [pre-1998 Probate Code] does not declare that all the beneficiaries under a will must agree to the naming of an administrator with will annexed, the rule of construction in paragraph (d)(5) of O.C.G.A. § 1-3-1 , that a joint authority given to any number of persons or officers may be executed by a majority of them unless it is otherwise declared applies. Dismuke v. Dismuke, 195 Ga. App. 613 , 394 S.E.2d 371 (1990), cert. denied, 1995 Ga. LEXIS 1050 (1995), cert. denied, 1999 Ga. LEXIS 39 (1999) (decided prior to the 1991 amendment to § 53-6-24 , deleting (11)).

Number

Use of plural instead of singular personal pronoun in indictment will not vitiate it. Jackson v. State, 88 Ga. 784 , 15 S.E. 677 (1892).

"Liquor" includes "liquors." Willburn v. State, 8 Ga. App. 28 , 68 S.E. 460 (1910).

"Company" includes "individual." Atlantic Coast Line R.R. v. State, 135 Ga. 545 , 69 S.E. 725 , 32 L.R.A. (n.s.) 20 (1910), aff'd, 234 U.S. 280, 34 S. Ct. 829 , 58 L. Ed. 1312 (1914), aff'd, 234 U.S. 280, 34 S. Ct. 829 , 58 L. Ed. 1312 (1914).

"Defendant" includes "defendants." - A verdict finding in favor of "the defendant" will be construed as a finding in favor of all the defendants, where the suit is against two or more persons. Monk-Sloan Supply Co. v. Quitman Oil Co., 10 Ga. App. 390 , 73 S.E. 522 (1912).

"Owner" includes "owners." Stallworth v. Martin-Ozburn Realty Co., 17 Ga. App. 689 , 87 S.E. 1094 (1916).

"Witnesses" includes "witness." Herndon v. Jones County, 18 Ga. App. 523 , 89 S.E. 1047 (1916).

In suit against two defendants, allegation where particular defendant is not referred to is good against an objection that it is not alleged which defendant is referred to. Brooks v. Hartsfield Co., 56 Ga. App. 184 , 192 S.E. 459 (1937).

Note signed by two parties obligation of both. - Although a note contains a promise to pay in the singular number, where the note is signed by two persons, it is the obligation of both. Scott v. Gaulding, 60 Ga. App. 306 , 3 S.E.2d 766 (1939).

No limit on purchasing tax executions. - There is no limit in Code 1933, § 92-7602 (now § 48-3-19 ) as to the number of tax executions a person may purchase. While that section reads in the singular, it is to be presumed that the Legislature had this section in mind in the passage of the former section. Beavers v. Interstate Bond Co., 189 Ga. 201 , 6 S.E.2d 283 (1939).

"Opposite party." - As regards new trial applications, "opposite party" includes all parties interested in sustaining verdict. Carmichael v. City of Jackson, 194 Ga. 664 , 22 S.E.2d 470 (1942).

Where school system lies in parts of two counties, a proviso expressly applying to independent school systems in a single county applies to it also. Rice v. Cook, 222 Ga. 499 , 150 S.E.2d 822 (1966).

Section inapplicable when statute expressly declares one witness sufficient. - This provision does not apply when it is apparent that the statute is dealing with the number of witnesses necessary and expressly declaring that one is sufficient except in specified cases. Stone v. State, 118 Ga. 705 , 45 S.E. 630 , 98 Am. St. R. 145 (1903).

Illustrative Cases

Unclear tax statute construed against state and in citizen's favor. - If a statute levying taxes is not clear and positive in its terms, or if it is open to different interpretations through the indefiniteness of its provisions, it is to be construed most strongly against the state and in favor of the citizen or subject, and its provisions are not to be extended, by implication, beyond the clear import of the language used. Thompson v. Georgia Power Co., 73 Ga. App. 587 , 37 S.E.2d 622 (1946).

Bank share tax to be construed so as to be constitutional. - Where the construction of the bank share tax must be reconsidered to determine its constitutionality the court should construe this statute so as to render it constitutional, rather than declare the entire act unconstitutional. Bartow County Bank v. Bartow County Bd. of Tax Assessors, 251 Ga. 831 , 312 S.E.2d 102 (1984), aff'd, 470 U.S. 583, 105 S. Ct. 1516 , 84 L. Ed. 2 d 535 (1985), aff'd sub nom., First Nat'l Bank v. Bartow County Bd. of Tax Assessors, 470 U.S. 583, 105 S. Ct. 1516 , 84 L. Ed. 2 d 535 (1985).

Defective summons cured by pleadings. - As a general rule it may be said that a defective summons will be regarded as aided or cured by the pleadings served with the summons when, with all the information contained in the two papers is the defendant's possession, the defendant could not be misled as to the nature of the relief demanded, or as to the court in which the proceedings are to be instituted. W.T. Rawleigh Co. v. Watts, 68 Ga. App. 786 , 24 S.E.2d 213 (1943).

If accused can admit all accusations of indictment and still be innocent, indictment is defective. Every indictment must be complete within itself, and charge a crime and every substantial element of the offense alleged to be committed. Gore v. State, 79 Ga. App. 696 , 54 S.E.2d 669 (1949).

Submission of interrogatories is mandatory in declaratory judgment action. Cole v. Frostgate Whses., Inc., 150 Ga. App. 320 , 257 S.E.2d 309 , rev'd on other grounds, 244 Ga. 782 , 262 S.E.2d 98 (1979).

Rights growing out of contracts protected. - Where the meaning of an Act is doubtful, it would not be so construed as to impair rights growing out of contracts prior to its passage. Mitchell v. Wolfe, 70 Ga. 625 (1883).

Contract required to be written may not be modified by subsequent oral agreement. Nowell v. Mayor of Monroe, 177 Ga. 648 , 171 S.E. 136 (1933).

At common law it was not required that contract of insurance should be in writing in order to be valid. Nowell v. Mayor of Monroe, 177 Ga. 648 , 171 S.E. 136 (1933).

Fidelity insurance contract must be in writing. - Whether the insurer is a resident or nonresident corporation, a contract of fidelity insurance must be in writing under the laws of this state. Nowell v. Mayor of Monroe, 177 Ga. 648 , 171 S.E. 136 (1933).

Rule applicable to contracts issued upon cash basis. - The rule that a policy of insurance shall be in writing and signed by the insurer applies to contracts issued upon a cash basis as well as to those issued upon a credit basis, if such there may be. Nowell v. Mayor of Monroe, 177 Ga. 648 , 171 S.E. 136 (1933).

Suit cannot be maintained upon a parol renewal of an insurance policy. Nowell v. Mayor of Monroe, 177 Ga. 648 , 171 S.E. 136 (1933).

Section considered in construing deed. - Without giving a strict and mandatory application of this section in the construction of a deed, yet, since it is true that the purpose is to arrive at the true meaning and intent of the language used, this section can properly be considered as illustrative of what constitutes the true intent and purpose of the instrument. Rustin v. Butler, 195 Ga. 389 , 24 S.E.2d 318 (1943).

O.C.G.A. § 51-5-11 (retraction in libel action) was clearly inapplicable to defamatory statements made in a radio talk show, it being clear, giving the words "newspaper or other publication" their ordinary signification, that the General Assembly intended that the section apply exclusively to the printed media. Williamson v. Lucas, 171 Ga. App. 695 , 320 S.E.2d 800 (1984).

Sanction issued by professional board. - The Board of Dentistry's decision to sanction a dentist was not void for want of jurisdiction, even though the decision was rendered more than 30 days following the close of the record, because there was no harm shown nor authority withdrawn. Thebaut v. Georgia Bd. of Dentistry, 235 Ga. App. 194 , 509 S.E.2d 125 (1998).

Lien laws must be strictly construed. - Georgia's law providing for a hospital lien against a patient for services rendered, O.C.G.A. § 44-14-470 et seq., must be strictly construed. MCG Health, Inc. v. Owners Ins. Co., 302 Ga. App. 812 , 692 S.E.2d 72 (2010).

SLAPP statute applied to non-Georgia residents. - Considering the text of the statute, the General Assembly's purpose, and the evil the statute was designed to correct, O.C.G.A. § 9-11-11.1(a) , Georgia's Anti-SLAPP statute, encompassed a press conference held outside the territorial limits of Georgia by New York defendants. Because the press conference was held to address an issue under consideration by a judicial body, i.e., a nuisance lawsuit filed by the New York defendants against gun dealers, a Georgia gun dealer's slander suit was dismissed for failure to file a verification as required by § 9-11-11.1(b) . Adventure Outdoors, Inc. v. Bloomberg, 307 Ga. App. 356 , 705 S.E.2d 241 (2010), cert. denied, No. S11C0648, 2011 Ga. LEXIS 402, cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 763 , 181 L. Ed. 2 d 485 (2011).

Motor vehicle hijacking statute. - Because the text of the hijacking statute, O.C.G.A. § 16-5-44.1 , does not define "obtain", a court looks to the ordinary meaning of that word, given that it was not a term of art or a technical term pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 1-3-1(b) ; ordinarily, "obtain" means to gain or attain possession, usually by some planned action or method, and applying the ordinary meaning of "obtain", the offense of hijacking a motor vehicle is concluded when possession of the motor vehicle is attained. Jackson v. State, 309 Ga. App. 24 , 709 S.E.2d 44 (2011).

Trial court misinterpreted O.C.G.A. § 16-13-49(d)(6) in holding that the defendant's vehicle, which was in close proximity to the defendant's apartment in which drugs were seized, was not subject to forfeiture because the state lacked evidence that the vehicle was in any way connected to the unlawful activity; no such connection was required. State of Ga. v. West, 331 Ga. App. 745 , 771 S.E.2d 432 (2015).

Rape shield statute. - By the statute's plain terms the rape shield statute, O.C.G.A. § 24-2-3(a) (see now O.C.G.A. § 24-4-412 ), applied only in prosecutions for rape and not to child molestation cases; however, the trial court did not err by applying former O.C.G.A. § 24-2-3(a) to defendant's case because the defendant was prosecuted for, among other offenses, rape, and the fact that the defendant was acquitted of the rape charge did not require a new trial on the other charges. Abdulkadir v. State, 279 Ga. 122 , 610 S.E.2d 50 (2005).

Plain language of O.C.G.A. § 42-8-62 . - Defendant was not required to register as a sexual offender because the defendant successfully completed a first-offender sentence for statutory rape and burglary charges, and a "conviction" under O.C.G.A. § 42-1-12(a)(8) did not include a discharge without an adjudication of guilt following the successful completion of a first offender sentence; the plain language of O.C.G.A. § 42-8-62 (a) provided that, with certain exceptions, once a first offender was discharged without an adjudication of guilt, he or she stood completely exonerated and was not considered as having been convicted of a crime. The trial court's interpretation of the statutes at issue as requiring all first offenders who had committed certain sexual offenses to register as sexual offenders for the rest of their lives rendered the plain language of O.C.G.A. § 42-1-12(8) meaningless and was improper. Jackson v. State, 299 Ga. App. 356 , 683 S.E.2d 60 (2009).

Dougherty County Probate Court allowed to hold jury trials. - Dougherty County, Ga., Probate Court had jurisdiction to hold jury trials because: (1) the 2010 census, which dropped the county's population below that required by O.C.G.A. § 15-9-120(2) to allow jury trials in probate court, was not effective until July 1, 2012, under O.C.G.A. § 1-3-1(d)(2)(D); and, (2) a statutory amendment, effective on that date, decreased the population requirement. Ellis v. Johnson, 291 Ga. 127 , 728 S.E.2d 200 (2012).

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Construction to conform to legislative intent. - In the interpretation of statutes, it is a cardinal rule that statutes must be construed to conform with the intent of the General Assembly. 1990 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 90-9.

Words given ordinary meaning. - When construing a statute, words should be given their ordinary and everyday meaning. 1990 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 90-6.

Money authorized for compensation of clerical assistants cannot be used for any other purpose. 1962 Op. Att'y Gen. p. 566.

Act amends section of same subject matter as that dealt with by Act. - Where an amendatory Act to the Code purports to deal with one subject matter, but specifies a section number which does not deal with this subject matter and, in fact, does not exist, the legal effect of the Act is to amend the section of the same subject matter. 1954-56 Op. Att'y Gen. p. 372.

Where intention of General Assembly to repeal prior Act is manifest, that intent will be recognized. 1972 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 72-57.

The 1981 amendment, as to the effective date of a census, does not operate retrospectively to January 1, 1981, but does, as of April 9, 1981, repeal Ga. L. 1963, p. 608. 1981 Op. Att'y Gen. No. U81-54.

Phrase "goods, wares or merchandise" should be construed in its ordinary sense; this means such chattels as are ordinarily the subject of traffic and trade. 1972 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 72-96.

Ordinary significance of the phrase "state institution" is a public, state-operated institution. 1973 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 73-72.

Section immaterial where calendar date determines action's deadline. - Where a calendar date rather than a number of days determines the deadline for taking action, the fact that the last day is on Saturday or Sunday is immaterial. 1962 Op. Att'y Gen. p. 565.

If section's prohibitive period runs in months. - Former Code 1933, §§ 25-213, 25-214, 25-216, 25-301, 25-313, 25-315, and 25-317 (see now O.C.G.A. § 7-3-14(2) ) should be interpreted so that the prohibitive period, either two months or six months, begins running the day following the date contained in the loan and expires midnight six months later on the same numerical calendar date, and further that the Saturday or Sunday carry-over period would not apply and could be counted toward the fulfillment of the restricted period. 1963-65 Op. Att'y Gen. p. 255.

Official action requires majority of officers to whom authority is given, rather than a majority of those then holding the office. 1980 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 80-31.

Official action requires majority of total number of positions on a board, rather than a majority of those present at a meeting. 1980 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 80-31.

Majority of members of Georgia Firemen's Pension Fund board must agree on any action to be taken before that action is binding. 1972 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 72-103.

Tax assessor board can act in absence of one member. - A board of tax assessors consisting of three members and sitting in accordance with former Code 1933, § 92-6911 (see now O.C.G.A. § 48-5-297 ) can legally act in the absence of one of its members; the absence of a member could be for "any reason." 1971 Op. Att'y Gen. No. U71-55.

Notice of called meeting of board of commissioners must be provided, where practical, to all board members, and failure to provide notice invalidates actions taken at a called meeting unless all members attend. 1976 Op. Att'y Gen. No. U76-57.

Larger and more extensive statutory expression controls. - Interest earned on educational purpose sales taxes and on special county one percent sales and use taxes becomes part of the tax proceeds in the account fund, which fund is required to be used exclusively for the purposes specified in the resolution or ordinance calling for the imposition of the tax. 2001 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 2001-3.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur. 2d. - 12 Am. Jur. 2d, Bonds, §§ 6, 11 et seq. 14 Am. Jur. 2d, Census, §§ 1, 4. 73 Am. Jur. 2d, Statutes, § 1 et seq.

C.J.S. - 11 C.J.S., Bonds, §§ 9, 11, 14. 14 C.J.S., Census, § 2. 82 C.J.S., Statutes, § 364 et seq.

ALR. - Scope and effect of exception of "special protection and privilege," in an Act giving women the same rights as men, 26 A.L.R. 356 .

Time for performance of an act under a lease when date fixed falls on Sunday or holiday, 29 A.L.R. 239 .

Power of municipal corporation to legislate as to Sunday observance, 37 A.L.R. 575 .

Title of statutes as an element bearing upon their construction, 37 A.L.R. 927 .

Application of rule of ejusdem generis to statutes of limitation, 39 A.L.R. 1404 .

What constitutes offense of obstructing or resisting officer, 48 A.L.R. 746 .

Validity of ordinance as affected by motives of persons who procured its adoption, 53 A.L.R. 942 .

Previous statute as affected by attempted but unconstitutional amendment, 66 A.L.R. 1483 .

Constitutionality, construction, and effect of statutes in relation to conduct of driver of automobile after happening of accident, 101 A.L.R. 911 .

Permissive or mandatory character of legislation in relation to payment of public debts, 103 A.L.R. 812 .

Constitutionality, construction, and application of statute as to effect of taking appeal, or staying execution, on right to redeem from execution or judicial sale, 107 A.L.R. 879 .

Constitutionality of statute which by express terms or construction declares that attorneys' liens shall not be affected by settlement or compromise between the parties, 122 A.L.R. 974 .

Supplying omitted words in statute or ordinance, 126 A.L.R. 1325 .

Character as felony or misdemeanor of offense for which a fine is provided as afected by provision for imprisonment until fine is satisfied, 127 A.L.R. 1286 .

Date or event contemplated by term "passage," "enactment," "effective date," etc., employed by statute in fixing time of facts or conditions within its operation, 132 A.L.R. 1048 .

Standard or system of time, 143 A.L.R. 1238 .

Presumption that, in re-enacting statute, legislature adopted previous judicial construction thereof, as applied to construction by trial or intermediate appellate court, 146 A.L.R. 923 .

"And/or," 154 A.L.R. 866 .

What amounts to seizure and holding of employer's plant, equipment, machinery, or other property within statutory exception to inhibition on injunctions in labor disputes, 163 A.L.R. 668 .

Inclusion or exclusion of the day of birth in computing one's age, 5 A.L.R.2d 1143.

Construction and effect of statutes limiting duration of agricultural leases, 17 A.L.R.2d 566.

Construction and effect in civil actions of statute, ordinance, or regulation requiring vehicles to be stopped or parked parallel with, and within certain distance of, curb, 17 A.L.R.2d 582.

Effective date of census, 43 A.L.R.2d 1353.

Meaning of "residence district," "business district," "school area," and the like, in statutes and ordinances regulating speed of motor vehicles, 50 A.L.R.2d 343.

Time for payment of insurance premium where last day falls on Sunday or holiday, 53 A.L.R.2d 877.

What constitutes a "scaffold" within scaffold safety requirement statutes, 87 A.L.R.2d 977.

Construction of zoning regulations prescribing minimum area for house lots or requiring an area proportionate to number of families to be housed, 95 A.L.R.2d 761.

Inclusion or exclusion of first and last days in computing the time for performance of an act or event which must take place a certain number of days before a known future date, 98 A.L.R.2d 1331.

Construction and application of statutes prohibiting or limiting loans to bank's officers or directors, 49 A.L.R.3d 727.

Abstention from voting of member of municipal council present at session as affecting requisite voting majority, 63 A.L.R.3d 1072.

Validity of zoning laws setting minimum lot size requirements, 1 A.L.R.5th 622.

Construction and application of zoning laws setting minimum lot size requirements, 2 A.L.R.5th 553.

1-3-2. Construction of definitions.

As used in this Code or in any other law of this state, defined words shall have the meanings specified, unless the context in which the word or term is used clearly requires that a different meaning be used.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

"Children." - A ward's stepchildren were not "children" under the guardianship statute, nor were they next of kin and, because there were individuals related to the ward by blood, who were not notified of the guardianship proceedings, the appointment of the guardian was void. Wilson v. James, 260 Ga. 234 , 392 S.E.2d 5 (1990).

"Person." - Non-profit association with the purpose of focusing on public interest matters of self-defense and gun laws of the State of Georgia was not a "person" which could claim to have an interest in the offices held by the Georgia Code Revision Commission members for purposes of pursuing a writ of quo warranto under O.C.G.A. § 9-6-60 . No association standing was shown because the interests the association sought to protect were not shown to be germane to its purpose. Georgiacarry.org, Inc. v. Allen, 299 Ga. 716 , 791 S.E.2d 800 (2016).

1-3-3. Definitions.

As used in this Code or in any other law of this state, the term:

  1. "Abode" ordinarily means domicile.
  2. "Accident" means an event which takes place without one's foresight or expectation or design.
  3. "Act of God" means an accident produced by physical causes which are irresistible or inevitable, such as lightning, storms, perils of the sea, earthquakes, inundations, sudden death, or illness. This expression excludes all idea of human agency.
  4. "Aforesaid" means next before.

    (4.1) "Agriculture," "agricultural operations," or "agricultural or farm products" means raising, harvesting, or storing of crops; feeding, breeding, or managing livestock or poultry; producing or storing feed for use in the production of livestock, including, but not limited to, cattle, calves, swine, hogs, goats, sheep, and rabbits, or for use in the production of poultry, including, but not limited to, chickens, hens, ratites, and turkeys; producing plants, trees, fowl, or animals; or the production of aquacultural, horticultural, dairy, livestock, poultry, eggs, and apiarian products. If the term "agriculture," "agricultural operations," or "agricultural or farm products" is defined in Title 2, Title 4, Title 10, or Title 11 or in any chapter, article, part, subpart, or Code section of such titles, such specific definition shall control for such purposes over the definition contained in this paragraph. Agricultural or farm products are considered grown in this state if such products are grown, produced, or processed in this state, whether or not such products are composed of constituent products grown or produced outside this state.

  5. "As soon as possible" means within a reasonable time, having due regard to all the circumstances.
  6. "Child" or "grandchild" means legitimate descendants.
  7. "County governing authority" means the board of county commissioners, the sole county commissioner, or the governing authority of a consolidated government.

    (7.1) "Crops" or "growing crops" means fruits and products of all annual or perennial plants, trees, and shrubs and shall also include plants, trees, shrubs, and other agricultural products that are produced for sale. If the term "crops" or "growing crops" is defined in Title 2, Title 4, or Title 10 or in any chapter, article, part, subpart, or Code section of such titles, such specific definition shall control for such purposes over the definition contained in this paragraph.

  8. "Following" means next after.
  9. "Lunatic," "insane," or "non compos mentis" each includes all persons of unsound mind.
  10. "May" ordinarily denotes permission and not command. However, where the word as used concerns the public interest or affects the rights of third persons, it shall be construed to mean "must" or "shall."
  11. "Month" means a calendar month. A scholastic month in public schools is 20 school days.
  12. "Oath" includes affirmation.
  13. "Penitentiary" means any place where inmates are confined under the authority of any law of this state.
  14. "Person" includes a corporation.
  15. "Preceding" means next before.
  16. "Property" includes real and personal property.

    (16.1) "Ratites" mean any members of the ratite family, including but not limited to ostriches, emus, and rheas, which are not indigenous to this state and which are raised for the purpose of producing meat, fiber, or animal by-products or as breeding stock. For the purposes of the laws of this state, ratites shall be treated as poultry and the term poultry as used in this Code or any law of this state shall include ratites unless such ratites are specifically excluded from the operation of any such law or unless such law or the operation thereof is restricted to a certain type of poultry.

  17. "Seal" includes impressions on the paper itself, as well as impressions on wax or wafers. With the exception of official seals, a scrawl or any other mark intended as a seal shall be held as such.
  18. "Sickness" means any affection of the body which deprives it temporarily of the power to fulfill its usual functions.
  19. "Signature" or "subscription" includes the mark of an illiterate or infirm person.

    (19.5) "Statutory overnight delivery" shall have the meaning provided for in subsection (b) of Code Section 9-10-12.

  20. "Trespass" means any misfeasance, transgression, or offense which damages another's health, reputation, or property.
  21. "Until," when used with reference to a certain day, includes all of such day.
  22. "Whereas" means considering that.
  23. "Writing" includes printing and all numerals.
  24. "Year" means a calendar year.

    (Laws 1838, Cobb's 1851 Digest, pp. 274, 536; Laws 1833, Cobb's 1851 Digest, p. 780; Code 1863, § 6; Code 1868, § 5; Code 1873, § 5; Code 1882, § 5; Civil Code 1895, § 5; Penal Code 1895, § 2; Ga. L. 1896, p. 82, § 1; Civil Code 1910, § 5; Penal Code 1910, § 2; Code 1933, § 102-103; Ga. L. 1957, p. 477, § 6; Ga. L. 1987, p. 1482, § 1; Ga. L. 1991, p. 1849, § 1; Ga. L. 1992, p. 2398, § 1; Ga. L. 1995, p. 347, §§ 1, 2; Ga. L. 2000, p. 1589, § 1; Ga. L. 2001, p. 362, § 23; Ga. L. 2008, p. 458, § 1/SB 364.)

History of section. - The language of this Code section is derived in part from the decisions in Central of Ga. Ry. v. Hall, 124 Ga. 322 , 52 S.E. 679 (1905); Georgia F. & A. Ry. v. Sasser, 130 Ga. 394 , 60 S.E. 997 (1908); W.E. Coldwell Co. v. Cowart, 138 Ga. 233 , 75 S.E. 425 (1912); Great Am. Coop. Fire Ass'n v. Jenkins, 11 Ga. App. 784 , 76 S.E. 159 (1912); Martin v. Waycross Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 18 Ga. App. 226 , 89 S.E. 495 (1916); Gainesville Grocery Co. v. Bank of Dahlonega, 25 Ga. App. 230 , 102 S.E. 912 (1920); Browning v. State, 31 Ga. App. 150 , 120 S.E. 649 (1923); Evans v. Cannon, 34 Ga. App. 470 , 130 S.E. 76 (1925); Central of Ga. Ry. v. Council Bros., 36 Ga. App. 574 , 137 S.E. 569 (1927); Hanson v. Williams, 170 Ga. 779 , 154 S.E. 240 (1930).

Cross references. - Construction of terms "city," "town," "municipality," and "village" as synonymous, § 36-30-1 .

Law reviews. - For article, "The Georgia Law of Insanity," see 3 Ga. B.J. 28 (1941). For survey article on insurance, see 34 Mercer L. Rev. 177 (1982). For article, "Publicity, Liberty and Intellectual Property: A Conceptual and Economic Analysis of the Inheritability Issue," see 34 Emory L.J. 1 (1985). For survey article on law of torts, see 59 Mercer L. Rev. 397 (2007). For note comparing procedures for hospitalization of the mentally ill in Georgia to other jurisdictions and suggesting improvements, see 7 Mercer L. Rev. 361 (1956). For note discussing concept of "act of God," see 4 Ga. L. Rev. 555 (1970).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

ANALYSIS

General Consideration

Any part of law may be used to ascertain meaning of another part. - Any portion of a body of laws may well be invoked to ascertain the meaning of words and phrases used in another part. Royal Indem. Co. v. Agnew, 66 Ga. App. 377 , 18 S.E.2d 57 (1941).

Cited in Chandler v. Johnson, 39 Ga. 85 (1869); Pearson v. Wimbish, 124 Ga. 701 , 52 S.E. 751 , 4 Ann. Cas. 501 (1906); Surles v. State, 148 Ga. 537 , 97 S.E. 538 (1918); Shelton v. State, 150 Ga. 71 , 102 S.E. 355 (1920); Citizens' Bank v. Hall, 179 Ga. 662 , 177 S.E. 496 (1934); Constitution Publishing Co. v. Lyon, 52 Ga. App. 434 , 183 S.E. 653 (1936); Longino v. Hanley, 184 Ga. 328 , 191 S.E. 101 (1937); Regents of Univ. Sys. v. Trust Co., 186 Ga. 498 , 198 S.E. 345 (1938); Paul v. State, 186 Ga. 825 , 199 S.E. 206 (1938); Walker v. State, 63 Ga. App. 254 , 10 S.E.2d 767 (1940); Turner v. State, 65 Ga. App. 292 , 16 S.E.2d 160 (1941); Foster v. Brown, 199 Ga. 444 , 34 S.E.2d 530 (1945); Whitehurst v. Singletary, 77 Ga. App. 811 , 50 S.E.2d 80 (1948); Roe v. Pitts, 82 Ga. App. 770 , 62 S.E.2d 387 (1950); Lane v. Varner, 89 Ga. App. 47 , 78 S.E.2d 528 (1953); Folsom v. Summer, Locatell & Co., 90 Ga. App. 696 , 83 S.E.2d 855 (1954); Hobbs v. New England Ins. Co., 212 Ga. 513 , 93 S.E.2d 653 (1956); Cobb v. Big Apple Supermarket of Columbus, Inc., 106 Ga. App. 790 , 128 S.E.2d 536 (1962); Hardy v. MacKinnon, 107 Ga. App. 120 , 129 S.E.2d 391 (1962); Lovett v. American Family Life Ins. Co., 107 Ga. App. 603 , 131 S.E.2d 70 (1963); Fincher v. Fox, 107 Ga. App. 695 , 131 S.E.2d 651 (1963); YMCA v. Bailey, 112 Ga. App. 684 , 146 S.E.2d 324 (1965); Georgia R.R. & Banking Co. v. Thigpen, 113 Ga. App. 65 , 147 S.E.2d 346 (1966); Cooper v. Melvin, 223 Ga. 239 , 154 S.E.2d 373 (1967); Blair v. Rayburn, 120 Ga. App. 57 , 169 S.E.2d 679 (1969); Georgia S. & Fla. Ry. v. Blanchard, 121 Ga. App. 82 , 173 S.E.2d 103 (1970); U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Lockhart, 229 Ga. 292 , 191 S.E.2d 59 (1972); Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Jackson Transp. Co., 126 Ga. App. 471 , 191 S.E.2d 110 (1972); White v. Hammond, 129 Ga. App. 408 , 199 S.E.2d 809 (1973); Tek-Aid, Inc. v. Eisenberg, 137 Ga. App. 99 , 223 S.E.2d 29 (1975); Hughes v. Star Bonding Co., 137 Ga. App. 661 , 224 S.E.2d 863 (1976); Smiley v. Davenport, 139 Ga. App. 753 , 229 S.E.2d 489 (1976); Beneficial Std. Life Ins. Co. v. Hamby, 142 Ga. App. 449 , 236 S.E.2d 116 (1977); Smith v. Cofer, 243 Ga. 530 , 255 S.E.2d 49 (1979); Mitchell v. Mitchell, 245 Ga. 291 , 264 S.E.2d 222 (1980); Harrelson Rubber Co. v. Super Treads, Inc., 7 Bankr. 532 (M.D. Ga. 1980); Georgia Int'l Life Ins. Co. v. Harden, 158 Ga. App. 450 , 280 S.E.2d 863 (1981); Chatham County v. Kiley, 249 Ga. 110 , 288 S.E.2d 551 (1982); Hart v. Owens-Illinois, Inc., 250 Ga. 397 , 297 S.E.2d 462 (1982); Board of Comm'rs v. Clayton County Sch. Dist., 250 Ga. 244 , 297 S.E.2d 724 (1982); Kelley v. Foster, 192 Ga. App. 95 , 383 S.E.2d 646 (1989); Ring v. Williams, 192 Ga. App. 329 , 384 S.E.2d 914 (1989); Savannah Bank & Trust Co. v. Weiner, 193 Ga. App. 616 , 388 S.E.2d 725 (1989); Moss v. Protective Life Ins. Co., 203 Ga. App. 389 , 417 S.E.2d 340 (1992); Hall v. Holder, 955 F.2d 1563 (11th Cir. 1992); Holder v. Hall, 512 U.S. 874, 114 S. Ct. 2581 , 129 L. Ed. 2 d 687 (1994); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Grayes, 216 Ga. App. 419 , 454 S.E.2d 616 (1995); Valley Place, Ltd. v. T.I. Equity Fund, L.P., 246 Ga. App. 378 , 541 S.E.2d 37 (2000); Manders v. Lee, 338 F.3d 1304 (11th Cir. 2003); White v. Shamrock Bldg. Sys., 294 Ga. App. 340 , 669 S.E.2d 168 (2008); Pelphrey v. Cobb County, 547 F.3d 1263 (11th Cir. 2008); Meredith v. Thompson, 312 Ga. App. 697 , 719 S.E.2d 592 (2011); Ga.-Pac. Consumer Prods., LP v. Ratner, 345 Ga. App. 434 , 812 S.E.2d 120 (2018).

"Abode"

"Abode" ordinarily means "domicile." Hanson v. Williams, 170 Ga. 779 , 154 S.E. 240 (1930).

"Accident"

"Accident" means unintentional act. - To the average layman, "accident" means only what the definition given it in this section states; an unintentional act, as opposed to something done in order to achieve a particular consequence. Bush v. Skelton, 91 Ga. App. 83 , 84 S.E.2d 835 (1954).

"Accident" means an unintentional act, as opposed to something done in order to achieve a particular consequence. Cohran v. Douglasville Concrete Prods., Inc., 153 Ga. App. 8 , 264 S.E.2d 507 (1980).

For purposes of constructing subject insurance policy, accident meant "an event which takes place without one's foresight or expectation or design." Crook v. Georgia Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 207 Ga. App. 614 , 428 S.E.2d 802 (1993).

"Accident" in its strict sense implies absence of negligence for which no one is liable. Richter v. Atlantic Co., 65 Ga. App. 605 , 16 S.E.2d 259 (1941).

The idea of "accident" excludes responsibility because of negligence. Bush v. Skelton, 91 Ga. App. 83 , 84 S.E.2d 835 (1954).

The legal connotation of "accident" has reference to unintentional acts occurring without being caused by any negligence of the parties involved. Lawrence v. Hayes, 92 Ga. App. 778 , 90 S.E.2d 102 (1955).

The defense of accident is to be confined to its strict sense as an occurrence which takes place in the absence of negligence and for which no one would be liable. Chadwick v. Miller, 169 Ga. App. 338 , 312 S.E.2d 835 (1983).

Although the definition of "accident" is somewhat ambiguous, in that it may also be said of lack of ordinary care that does not exist by reason of foresight or design, yet the distinction has been clearly stated in the cases as something which would not have been precluded by the exercise of ordinary care on the part of either the plaintiff or the defendant. Zayre of Ga., Inc. v. Haynes, 134 Ga. App. 15 , 213 S.E.2d 163 (1975).

Personal injury cases. - Word "accident" means, in personal injury cases, injury which occurs without being caused by negligence of either the plaintiff or the defendant. Cohran v. Douglasville Concrete Prods., Inc., 153 Ga. App. 8 , 264 S.E.2d 507 (1980); Freed v. Redwing Refrigeration, Inc., 156 Ga. App. 817 , 275 S.E.2d 691 (1980).

An "accident," in a strict legal sense, as applied to negligence cases, refers to an event which is not proximately caused by negligence, but instead arises from an unforeseen or unexplained cause. But it is also often used to indicate a happening which, although not wholly free from negligence by some person, was not proximately caused by the failure of either of the parties to a case to exercise ordinary care in the situation. Baggett v. Jackson, 79 Ga. App. 460 , 54 S.E.2d 146 (1949).

The word "accident," as applied to personal injury cases, has a legal meaning as referring to an injury which occurs without being caused by the negligence of either the plaintiff or the defendant. Bush v. Skelton, 91 Ga. App. 83 , 84 S.E.2d 835 (1954).

In a personal injury case, an "accident" is an event which happens unmixed with the lack of ordinary care and diligence of either party, for which there can be no recovery. Trammell v. Williams, 97 Ga. App. 31 , 101 S.E.2d 887 (1958).

No error in refusing accident charge when evidence plainly shows negligence. - There is no error in a refusal to charge the jury on the law of accident, even upon request, when the evidence plainly shows that the plaintiff's injuries were the result of the defendants' negligence. Lawrence v. Hayes, 92 Ga. App. 778 , 90 S.E.2d 102 (1955).

Defendant willfully and wantonly fires loaded pistol. - Where the defendant was engaged in the unlawful act of willfully and wantonly firing a loaded pistol between dark and daylight on a public highway, not on the defendant's own premises or in defense of person or property, from which a homicide resulted, the defense of accidental homicide was not involved, and the trial judge did not err in refusing to give a written request to charge. Creel v. State, 216 Ga. 233 , 115 S.E.2d 552 (1960).

Because the underlying civil action did not involve allegations of an "accident," and there was no "occurrence" under the terms of the insurance policy, the defendant insurer had no duty to defend or indemnify plaintiffs in the underlying action and the insurer was entitled to summary judgment on the plaintiffs' suit. Burt Co. v. Clarendon Nat'l Ins. Co., 385 Fed. Appx. 892 (11th Cir. 2010)(Unpublished).

Error to give charge where defense not sustained by evidence. - It is error to give in charge the law of accident where neither the pleadings nor any evidence would sustain this defense. Bush v. Skelton, 91 Ga. App. 83 , 84 S.E.2d 835 (1954).

Evidence plainly shows negligence. - Where the evidence plainly shows that the injuries of the plaintiff were due either exclusively to the plaintiff's own negligence, or solely to the negligence of the defendant, or to the negligence of both the plaintiff and the defendant, it is error for the court to charge the law of accident. Everett v. Clegg, 213 Ga. 168 , 97 S.E.2d 689 (1957).

Where no accident, and charge given without defining term, error requires reversal. - Where an accident is not involved in a case, and a charge is given on "accident" without defining the term, which would tend to lead the jury to believe that the plaintiffs could not recover unless the act of the defendant was nonaccidental or intentional, then the charge is an error requiring a reversal of the case. Bush v. Skelton, 91 Ga. App. 83 , 84 S.E.2d 835 (1954).

Where accident question not raised, injection of theory of accident reversible error. - Where neither the pleadings nor the evidence raised any question of accident, the issue before the jury being whether the injuries of the plaintiff were caused by the negligence of the defendant, or by the plaintiff's own negligence, or by the joint negligence of both, the injection by the court of the theory of accident as a cause of the two vehicles colliding was calculated to detract the attention of the jury from the real issue in the case and was reversible error. Everett v. Clegg, 213 Ga. 168 , 97 S.E.2d 689 (1957).

Court's charge found not error. - The court did not err in the instructions to the jury as to the care and diligence required of one manufacturing bottled drinks for sale, or in charging that "if the defendant was not negligent and did exercise ordinary care, and any foreign substance got into the bottle notwithstanding ordinary care, that would be what the law designates as an unavoidable accident, for the occurrence of which the defendant would not be liable." Hathcox v. Atlanta Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 50 Ga. App. 410 , 178 S.E. 404 (1935).

The testimony of the eyewitness, when considered together with that of the plaintiff, was sufficient to authorize the jury to find that there was no negligence on the part of the defendant railway which caused the plaintiff's injuries, and that the event was an "accident" as pled by the defendant; accordingly, the charge of the court on "accident" was adjusted to the pleadings and evidence, and was not error. Warren v. Georgia S. & F. Ry., 77 Ga. App. 886 , 50 S.E.2d 128 (1948).

Charge on defense of accident in personal injury case in language of section is error. Cohran v. Douglasville Concrete Prods., Inc., 153 Ga. App. 8 , 264 S.E.2d 507 (1980).

Charge not harmless error. - Unless there is evidence authorizing a finding that an occurrence was an "accident," a charge on that defense is error. Chadwick v. Miller, 169 Ga. App. 338 , 312 S.E.2d 835 (1983).

Events underlying case against insured took place with insured's foresight, expectation, or design. - In a case in which an insured appealed a district court's entry of summary judgment in favor of an insurer in a declaratory judgment case, the insurer had no duty to defend the insured in the underlying civil suit alleging bodily injury and property damage because, while the policy did not define accident, the events underlying the complaint in the case against the insured did not take place without the insured's foresight, expectation, or design, and the homeowner's policy excluded expressly from coverage losses resulting from bodily injury which were expected or intended by the insured even if the bodily injury was of a different kind, quality, or degree than expected or intended. Meritplan Ins. Co. v. Leverette, F.3d (11th Cir. Jan. 13, 2014)(Unpublished).

"Act of God"

"Act of God" constitutes a defense in respect of which the burden of proof is on a defendant to establish. Eidson v. Mathews, 120 Ga. App. 711 , 172 S.E.2d 144 (1969).

Term "act of God" in its legal sense applies only to events in nature so extraordinary that the history of climatic variations and other conditions in the particular locality affords no reasonable warning of them. Sampson v. General Elec. Supply Corp., 78 Ga. App. 2 , 50 S.E.2d 169 (1948).

"Act of God" is an accident caused by physical causes which are irresistible or inevitable, such as lightning, storms, perils of the sea, earthquakes, inundations, sudden death, or illness. Uniroyal, Inc. v. Hood, 588 F.2d 454 (5th Cir. 1979).

Idea of human agency excluded. - "Act of God," in order to constitute a defense, must exclude idea of human agency. Sampson v. General Elec. Supply Corp., 78 Ga. App. 2 , 50 S.E.2d 169 (1948).

The concept of an "act of God" excludes all idea of human agency. Uniroyal, Inc. v. Hood, 588 F.2d 454 (5th Cir. 1979).

An "act of God" means a casualty which is not only not due to human agency, but which is in no wise contributed to by human agency, and an act which may be prevented by the exercise of ordinary care is not an act of God. Central Ga. Elec. Membership Corp. v. Heath, 60 Ga. App. 649 , 4 S.E.2d 700 (1939).

The trial court improperly injected consideration of human factors into the calculus when it charged that an act of God "is not due to any human agency" and added that "acts of God are events of nature, which are so extraordinary in character that human scale and foresight by the exercise of proper care and caution cannot provide against them." Strange v. Bartlett, 236 Ga. App. 686 , 513 S.E.2d 246 (1999).

Casualty preventable by the exercise of ordinary care is not an act of God. Uniroyal, Inc. v. Hood, 588 F.2d 454 (5th Cir. 1979).

Whether particular casualty is "act of God" is a mixed question of law and fact. Uniroyal, Inc. v. Hood, 588 F.2d 454 (5th Cir. 1979).

Whether an extraordinary flood is an "act of God," as that expression is used in the law, is a mixed question of law and facts; the defining and limitation of the term, its several characteristics, and its possibilities as establishing and controlling an exemption from liability, are questions of law for the court, but the existence or nonexistence of the facts on which it is predicated is a question for the jury. Goble v. Louisville & N.R.R., 187 Ga. 243 , 200 S.E. 259 (1938).

For circumstances justifying submission of charge on "act of God" defense to jury in suit for damages caused by rain-induced flooding of warehouse, see Uniroyal, Inc. v. Hood, 588 F.2d 454 (5th Cir. 1979).

Evidence not sufficient to authorize jury to find "act of God." - Where witnesses for both the plaintiff and defendants testified that the sewer which the lessor had contracted to keep in repair and which overflowed, causing damage to plaintiff's property, was partially stopped up, that the water was not passing through it as it normally did, and that large quantities of debris were cleaned out of it after this rain, and that previously there had been other rains there about as heavy as the one on the afternoon in question, the evidence as to the rain was not sufficient to authorize a jury to find that the rain was an "act of God," in the legal sense of this term. Sampson v. General Elec. Supply Corp., 78 Ga. App. 2 , 50 S.E.2d 169 (1948).

Nonannual floods. - Some courts have attempted to fix the meaning of "extraordinary" in relation to the frequency of occurrence, holding that such floods as are not of annual occurrence are extraordinary and an "act of God"; but the true rule would seem to be that the mere fact that a flood does not occur annually will not make it an extraordinary one, if from the climatic conditions and the character of the country it is likely to occur, and has been known to occur, with sufficient frequency to warn nearby residents. Goble v. Louisville & N.R.R., 187 Ga. 243 , 200 S.E. 259 (1938).

One obstructing natural watercourse not liable where flood sole cause of injury. - While it is the general rule that where rains are so unprecedented, and the flood caused thereby so extraordinary, that they are in legal contemplation an "act of God," one obstructing a natural watercourse will not be held liable only where the "act of God" is not only the proximate cause, but the sole cause, of the injury. Goble v. Louisville & N.R.R., 187 Ga. 243 , 200 S.E. 259 (1938).

If person's negligence cooperating cause, obstructor held responsible. - Where an unprecedented flood is the cause of the injury, but the prior, coincident, or subsequent negligence of a person obstructing a natural watercourse so mingles with it as to be an efficient and cooperating cause, the obstructor will be held responsible, because one's act is causa sine qua non. Goble v. Louisville & N.R.R., 187 Ga. 243 , 200 S.E. 259 (1938).

Utility's permitting lightning to travel into room. - While the striking of the main line of an electric utility by lightning was an "act of God," the utility's permitting it to travel across lateral wire into the plaintiff's room, instead of arranging for it to be conducted into the ground, was not an act free from human agency. Central Ga. Elec. Membership Corp. v. Heath, 60 Ga. App. 649 , 4 S.E.2d 700 (1939).

Ordinary freshet is not the "act of God," in a legal sense which protects a man against the responsibility for the nonperformance of a contract. Sampson v. General Elec. Supply Corp., 78 Ga. App. 2 , 50 S.E.2d 169 (1948).

Sudden loss of consciousness by itself may come within the definition of "act of God"; yet an "act of God" means a casualty which is not only not due to human agency, but is one which is in no wise contributed to by human agency, and an act which may be prevented by the exercise of ordinary care is not an "act of God." Jackson v. Co-op Cab Co., 102 Ga. App. 688 , 117 S.E.2d 627 (1960).

To establish an "act of God" defense based on illness producing a loss of consciousness, the driver must show that the loss of consciousness produced the accident without any contributing negligence on the part of the driver. Lewis v. Smith, 238 Ga. App. 6 , 517 S.E.2d 538 (1999).

Loss of consciousness by a driver would not be a complete defense if by the exercise of ordinary care it was foreseeable to the driver that the driver might lose consciousness while driving; even if loss of consciousness was not foreseeable, it would still not be a complete defense if the evidence showed the loss of consciousness occurred, not suddenly, but in a manner that would have allowed a reasonable driver to take some action to avoid the ensuing accident. Lewis v. Smith, 238 Ga. App. 6 , 517 S.E.2d 538 (1999).

When the plaintiff failed to produce any specific facts rebutting the defendant's affirmative defense of sudden loss of consciousness and the plaintiff failed to show there was a genuine issue for trial, the trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant. Lewis v. Smith, 238 Ga. App. 6 , 517 S.E.2d 538 (1999).

When the uncontradicted evidence in a suit involving two drivers showed that just before running a red light, the second driver had suffered a sudden and unforeseeable loss of consciousness, the co-executor for the second driver had established a prima facie case of an "act of God" defense under O.C.G.A. § 1-3-3(3) ; as the first driver had not rebutted this defense, it was proper to enter summary judgment for the co-executor. Halligan v. Broun, 285 Ga. App. 226 , 645 S.E.2d 581 (2007).

Truck driver's estate sufficiently established the affirmative defense of an "act of God" for purposes of a claim of negligence arising from a vehicle collision caused by the truck driver having a stroke and veering into a car in another lane of traffic; there was uncontradicted evidence that the truck driver had an unforeseeable loss of consciousness just prior to losing control of the truck. Eatmon v. Weeks, 323 Ga. App. 578 , 746 S.E.2d 886 (2013).

Smoky fog maintainable as "act of God." - Evidence that fog on the morning of the accident was naturally dense enough to alone reduce visibility to dangerous levels, sufficed to allow a jury charge of "act of God", despite the combined presence of artificial smoke in the air. Mann v. Anderson, 206 Ga. App. 760 , 426 S.E.2d 583 (1992).

"Lunatic," "Insane," or "Non Compos Mentis"

Condition of mind of persons "non compos mentis" of three degrees. - The Code defines "insane" persons, or persons "non compos mentis," or persons "mentally incompetent," as meaning persons with unsoundness of mind in many degrees, such condition of mind being of three degrees: (1) one who is so unsound as to be sent to an asylum; (2) another so unsound as to have a guardian of one's property and of one's person; and (3) another so unsound as to have a guardian only of one's property, to see that it is not wasted; that is, a trustee. Royal Indem. Co. v. Agnew, 66 Ga. App. 377 , 18 S.E.2d 57 (1941).

When insured "non compos mentis," unable to make valid contract. - When a petition alleges that the insured, at the time the insured agreed with the company, was non compos mentis, it alleges that the insured was at the time unable to make any valid contract. Cason v. Owens, 100 Ga. 142 , 28 S.E. 75 (1897).

"May"

True rule for the construction of the word "may" in a statute is, that when such statute concerns the public interest, or affects the rights of third persons, then the word "may" shall be construed to mean "must" or "shall." "May" is held to mean shall in two cases: (1) where the thing to be done is for the sake of justice; or (2) is for the public benefit. Jennings v. Suggs, 180 Ga. 141 , 178 S.E. 282 (1935).

Where a statute in permissive terms provides for the performance of some act which justice or the public good requires, its terms will be construed as having an imperative significance, and the performance of the act permissively provided for is made mandatory. Prince v. Lee Roofing Co., 161 Ga. App. 181 , 288 S.E.2d 135 (1982).

Where a statute in permissive terms authorizes the privation of a valuable right and the imposition of a penalty, the permissive terms are not mandatory, and the conferee of the power has a discretion in exercising it. Prince v. Lee Roofing Co., 161 Ga. App. 181 , 288 S.E.2d 135 (1982).

Trial judge is not vested with discretion in matter of taxing costs against convicted defendant. There is no provision of law for the payment of the fees of the officers of the court where the judge in the judge's discretion fails to tax the costs against the convicted defendant, and it cannot be assumed that it was ever intended that the compensation of these officers should rest in the discretion of the judge. Pound v. Faulkner, 193 Ga. 413 , 18 S.E.2d 749 (1942).

"Month"

Calendar month. - "Month" means a calendar month. Jobson v. Masters, 32 Ga. App. 60 , 122 S.E. 724 , cert. denied, 32 Ga. App. 807 (1924).

Three months did not mean 90 days. - The 1991 version of O.C.G.A. § 44-14-361.1 , requiring a contractor to file a contractor's claim of lien three months from the completion of the work, governed and was satisfied by the contractor's filing the claim of lien on September 12 following the completion of work on June 13. The court rejected the owner's argument that "three months" meant 90 days. Fed. Trust Bank v. C. W. Matthews Contr. Co., 312 Ga. App. 200 , 718 S.E.2d 63 (2011).

Current year. - When word "month" is referred to, it will be understood to be of current year, unless from the connection it appears that another is intended. Tipton v. State, 119 Ga. 304 , 46 S.E. 436 (1904).

"Penitentiary"

Prior to November 1, 1982, a county correctional institute was not a "penitentiary" because it was not "exclusively" for the confinement of felony prisoners, as required by former Code 1933, § 102-103 (see now O.C.G.A. § 1-3-1 ). As a result, former Code 1933, § 26-9902 (see now O.C.G.A. § 17-8-50 ), which dealt with the trial of prisoners escaping from the "penitentiary," was inapplicable to a prisoner escaping from a county correctional institute. Accordingly, such a prisoner had no right, if one in fact existed under the inapplicable statute, to be returned to and to remain in the county correctional institute after the prisoner's apprehension. Mullins v. State, 167 Ga. App. 670 , 307 S.E.2d 61 (1983).

"Person"

Ordinary signification of the word "person" is that it includes both sexes. Brown v. Hemphill, 74 Ga. 795 (1885).

"Person," when used in a restricted sense, means only an artificial person or corporation. Comer v. State, 103 Ga. 69 , 29 S.E. 501 (1897).

It is well settled that corporation is included in word "person" in the criminal statutes. It is true that the doctrine of holding corporations responsible for the violation of penal laws is one developed by gradual evolution, but it is none the less the law, and it is of healthful necessity and utility. Southern Express Co. v. State, 1 Ga. App. 700 , 58 S.E. 67 (1907). ; see also Collins Park & B.R.R. v. Short Elec. Ry., 98 Ga. 62 , 25 S.E. 929 (1895).

Standing to attack a statute on constitutional grounds. - A private corporation may attack a state statute on the grounds that it violates due process and equal protection. Caldwell v. Hospital Auth., 248 Ga. 887 , 287 S.E.2d 15 (1982).

A hospital authority has standing by statute to attack the state law on the grounds that it violates the due process and equal protection clauses of the Georgia Constitution. Caldwell v. Hospital Auth., 248 Ga. 887 , 287 S.E.2d 15 (1982).

Non-profit corporation without standing in quo warranto proceeding. - Non-profit association with the purpose of focusing on public interest matters of self-defense and gun laws of the State of Georgia was not a "person" which could claim to have an interest in the offices held by the Georgia Code Revision Commission members for purposes of pursuing a writ of quo warranto under O.C.G.A. § 9-6-60 . No association standing was shown because the interests the association sought to protect were not shown to be germane to its purpose. Georgiacarry.org, Inc. v. Allen, 299 Ga. 716 , 791 S.E.2d 800 (2016).

Railroad companies are included in word, "person." Western & Atl. R.R. v. Turner, 72 Ga. 292 , 53 Am. R. 842 (1884). See also South-Western R.R. v. Paulk, 24 Ga. 356 (1858).

Bank. - Municipality may tax a bank as a "person". Mayor of Macon v. Macon Sav. Bank, 60 Ga. 133 (1878).

Right to obtain a supersedeas extends to insolvent corporations Collins Park & B.R.R. v. Short Elec. Ry., 98 Ga. 62 , 25 S.E. 929 (1895).

Corporation not "person" if not within provision's purpose and intent, or attempt to exclude appears. - A corporation is not impliedly within a statutory provision applicable to persons if it is not within the purpose and intent of the provision, or if an attempt to exclude it otherwise appears. Georgia R.R. Bank & Trust Co. v. Liberty Nat'l Bank & Trust Co., 180 Ga. 4 , 177 S.E. 803 (1934).

Corporation was person for RICO purposes. - On remand from the U.S. Supreme Court, a class action suit filed by legal employees of a Georgia rug manufacturer, alleging state RICO violations based on the widespread hiring of illegal aliens in order to depress the hourly wages of its workers, survived a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim; the federal appellate court deferred to the Supreme Court of Georgia's holding that O.C.G.A. § 16-14-4 , when read in conjunction with O.C.G.A. §§ 1-3-3(14) and 16-1-3(12) , provided that "any person" could be sued under the Georgia RICO statute, including corporations such as the rug manufacturer. Williams v. Mohawk Indus., 465 F.3d 1277 (11th Cir. 2006), cert. denied, mot. denied, 549 U.S. 1260, 127 S. Ct. 1381 , 167 L. Ed. 2 d 174 (2007).

Averment in an indictment that representations were made to a corporation is sufficient, for this was a representation to a person, although an artificial one. Turnipseed v. State, 53 Ga. App. 194 , 185 S.E. 403 (1936).

Bank or trust company's authority to appear as next friend involves consideration of charter power. - While the term, "person" will ordinarily include a corporation, the question of the authority of a bank or trust company to appear as a next friend involves a consideration of the charter power, as well as the general law. Georgia R.R. Bank & Trust Co. v. Liberty Nat'l Bank & Trust Co., 180 Ga. 4 , 177 S.E. 803 (1934).

"Preceding"

Different signification is given "preceding," "aforesaid," and "following," if required by context and facts of the case. Simpson v. Robert, 35 Ga. 180 (1866).

"Property"

"Estate" and "character of estate" have reference to the interest in the property, which shows that, while realty and personalty are different kinds of "property," they are not different kinds of estates. DeVaughn v. McLeroy, 82 Ga. 687 , 10 S.E. 211 (1889).

Military salary not "present" in every state for child support purposes. - The salary of an armed forces member is not "property" which is constructively "present" in every state for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 659(a). Williamson v. Williamson, 247 Ga. 260 , 275 S.E.2d 42 (1981).

"Road"

Inclusion of bridges. - "Road" includes all the bridges thereon, unless the context requires a different construction. Wright v. Floyd County, 1 Ga. App. 582 , 58 S.E. 72 (1907).

"Seal"

Necessary recital and attachment. - To render a private writing an instrument under seal, it is only necessary that it recite in the body that a "seal" is used or contemplated, or that a scrawl or other mark intended as a "seal" be annexed or affixed. Stansell v. Corley, 81 Ga. 453 , 8 S.E. 868 (1889).

To constitute a sealed instrument, it must contain a recital in the body of the instrument to the effect that it is given under seal, and the signature of the party to the instrument must have attached thereto a "seal" or scroll. In other words, the rule is that there must be both a recital in the body of the instrument of an intention to use a seal and the affixing of the "seal" or scroll after the signature. Chastain v. L. Moss Music Co., 83 Ga. App. 570 , 64 S.E.2d 205 (1951).

Additional recital above signature of promissory note's accommodation endorser unnecessary. - Where the language in the face of a promissory note recites that it is a sealed instrument, and the signature of an accommodation endorser on the back of the note is accompanied by a "seal" or its equivalent, it is unnecessary for an additional recital to appear on the back of the note above the signature of the endorser that the endorser's obligation is one under seal in order to render it such, and this is for the reason that the endorser's endorsement under seal accepts and binds the endorser, as a surety, upon the contract of the maker on the face of the paper, which includes the recitals above the signature of the maker. Hamby v. Crisp, 48 Ga. App. 418 , 172 S.E. 842 (1934).

"Witness our hand and seal" does not alone make a note a sealed instrument, without the addition of a seal or scroll. Willhelms v. Partoine, 72 Ga. 898 (1884).

Bond signed by executing party with written scroll. - Where a bond was signed by the party executing it, and opposite the party's name was an ink scroll with the word "seal" written within it, it was held that it was to be considered a sealed instrument. Williams v. Greer, 12 Ga. 459 (1853).

Scroll may be adopted by a corporation, either as a common "seal" or as a "seal" for a special purpose. Johnston v. Crawley, 25 Ga. 316 , 71 Am. Dec. 173 (1858); American Inv. Co. v. Cable Co., 4 Ga. App. 106 , 60 S.E. 1037 (1908).

"Sickness"

Definition of "sickness" is codification from the decision in Martin v. Waycross Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 18 Ga. App. 226 , 89 S.E. 495 (1916), which was an action for damages based on the alleged negligence of the defendant causing the sickness of the plaintiff; that decision quotes the definition of "sickness" in Black's Law Dictionary as including "any morbid condition of the body . . . which for the time being hinders and prevents the organs from normally discharging their several functions." American Life Ins. Co. v. Stone, 78 Ga. App. 98 , 50 S.E.2d 231 (1948).

"Illness" and "sickness or disease" are synonymous terms. American Life Ins. Co. v. Stone, 78 Ga. App. 98 , 50 S.E.2d 231 (1948).

Popular meanings of "sickness" and "disease." - The words "sickness" and "disease" are technically synonymous, but when given the popular meaning, as required in construing a contract of insurance, "sickness" is a condition interfering with one's usual activities, whereas "disease" may exist without such result. Georgia Int'l Life Ins. Co. v. Harden, 158 Ga. App. 450 , 280 S.E.2d 863 (1981).

"Sickness" requires incapacity. - One is not ordinarily considered sick who performs one's usual occupation, though some organ of the body may be affected, but is regarded as sick when such diseased condition has advanced far enough to incapacitate the person. Georgia Int'l Life Ins. Co. v. Harden, 158 Ga. App. 450 , 280 S.E.2d 863 (1981).

Construction of insurance policy. - In determining what losses are covered by policies insuring against losses on account of "disease" or "sickness," the general rule that ambiguous or uncertain provisions will be construed most favorably to the insured is applied. Georgia Int'l Life Ins. Co. v. Harden, 158 Ga. App. 450 , 280 S.E.2d 863 (1981).

Hernia can result from "sickness" or "disease." - While a hernia is frequently caused by an accident or an injury, it does not follow that a hernia is never the result of a "sickness" or "disease." American Life Ins. Co. v. Stone, 78 Ga. App. 98 , 50 S.E.2d 231 (1948).

It was jury question whether or not hernia not disabling to any extent was "sickness" within the meaning of an insurance policy. American Life Ins. Co. v. Stone, 78 Ga. App. 98 , 50 S.E.2d 231 (1948).

"Signature"

"Signature" includes mark, even though the mark is not between the given name and surname. Horton v. Murden, 117 Ga. 72 , 43 S.E. 786 (1903).

Entry of levy by another good where illiterate officer signs with mark. - Where an officer making a levy cannot write, an entry thereof written out by another, in the officer's presence and by the officer's procurement, and signed by the officer with the officer's mark is good. Cox v. Montford, 66 Ga. 62 (1880).

Witness who signs by mark, if capable of testifying, is just as competent a witness as one likewise capable of testifying who writes his own name. Gillis v. Gillis, 96 Ga. 1 , 23 S.E. 107 , 51 Am. St. R. 121 , 30 L.R.A. 143 (1895).

Evidence that attorney physically enabled testatrix to make mark sufficient to find that will "signed." - Where there was evidence that the attorney who prepared the will enabled the testatrix, who because of the testatrix's physical condition could not write, to make the testatrix's mark by placing the testatrix's hand upon the pen as the mark was made, this was sufficient to authorize the jury to find that the testatrix "signed" the will. Crutchfield v. McCallie, 188 Ga. 833 , 5 S.E.2d 33 (1939).

"Then"

When used as adverb of time, Supreme Court has defined "then" as meaning "immediately afterwards." Evans v. Edenfield, 170 Ga. 805 , 154 S.E. 257 (1930).

"Trespass"

Railroad blocking highway for unreasonable time. - Where a railroad company blocks with its cars a crossing on a public highway for a needless or unreasonable length of time, a pedestrian, after waiting a reasonable time for the cars to be removed, may turn aside to avoid the obstruction and pass over the property of the company without being a "trespasser" in so doing. Yarbrough v. Georgia R.R. & Banking Co., 48 Ga. App. 314 , 172 S.E. 808 (1934).

Evidence insufficient to support "trespass" claim. - In an action against a utility and power company for damages on theories of "trespass" and nuisance arising from electromagnetic radiation, a grant of summary judgment on the trespass claim and directed verdict on the nuisance claim were proper for policy reasons since the scientific evidence was inconclusive regarding the invasive quality of magnetic fields from power lines. Jordan v. Georgia Power Co., 219 Ga. App. 690 , 466 S.E.2d 601 (1995).

Summary judgment was properly entered for a realtor as to a landowner's trespass claim, as the landowner never determined that the silt fence was actually on the landowner's property, and the realtor testified that the fence was located on a public right-of-way. Sorrow v. Hadaway, 269 Ga. App. 446 , 604 S.E.2d 197 (2004).

"Year"

Section has no application where the word "year" is used in a lease contract. Brooke v. Atlanta Woolen Mills, 18 Ga. App. 505 , 89 S.E. 598 (1916).

Word "year," means a calendar year, unless a different meaning is apparent from the context. Dowling v. Lester, 74 Ga. App. 290 , 39 S.E.2d 576 (1946).

Different meaning of "year" may appear from the context of an Act. Lane v. Tarver, 153 Ga. 570 , 113 S.E. 452 (1922); Southerland v. Bradshaw, 255 Ga. 455 , 339 S.E.2d 579 (1986).

Term "current year" refers to the calendar year, and not an arbitrary business year fixed by local custom or otherwise. King v. Johnson, 96 Ga. 497 , 23 S.E. 500 (1895).

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Words "prison" and "penitentiary" are interchangeable and the variation, therefore, is legally insignificant. 1971 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 71-191.

Unauthorized anchoring of boats in a state park constitutes a "trespass" punishable as a misdemeanor. 1962 Op. Att'y Gen. p. 402.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur. 2d. - 1 Am. Jur. 2d, Act of God, § 1 et seq. 12 Am. Jur. 2d, Bonds, §§ 4 et seq., 15. 18 Am. Jur. 2d, Corporations, § 64 et seq., 65. 25 Am. Jur. 2d, Domicil, §§ 1, 5. 42 Am. Jur. 2d, Infants, § 1 et seq. 53 Am Jur. 2d, Mentally Impaired Persons, § 1 et seq. 57A Am. Jur. 2d, Negligence, §§ 15, 32 et seq. 58 Am. Jur. 2d, Oath and Affirmation, § 1 et seq. 59 Am. Jur. 2d, Parent and Child, § 4. 63C Am. Jur. 2d, Property, § 1 et seq. 68 Am. Jur. 2d, Seals, § 1 et seq. 75 Am. Jur. 2d, Trespass, § 1 et seq.

C.J.S. - § 1 et seq. 1 C.J.S., Abode. § 1 et seq. 1 C.J.S., Accident. § 1 et seq. 1A C.J.S., Act of God. § 1 et seq. 11 C.J.S., Bonds, § 10 et seq. 18 C.J.S., Corporations, §§ 2, 3. 28 C.J.S., Domicile, § 3. § 1 et seq. 44 C.J.S., Insane Persons, §§ 1, 2. § 1 et seq. 57 C.J.S., May. 65 C.J.S., Negligence, § 1. 67 C.J.S., Oaths and Affirmations, §§ 1, 2. 72 C.J.S., Prisons, § 2. 73 C.J.S., Property, § 1 et seq. 78A C.J.S., Seals, § 2. § 1 et seq. 80 C.J.S., Signatures, § 5. 82 C.J.S., Statutes, §§ 395 et seq., 402 et seq., 436 et seq. 86 C.J.S., Time, §§ 2, 5, 6, 13, 15. 87 C.J.S., Trespass, § 1 et seq.

ALR. - Domicile while in itinere from old to new home, 5 A.L.R. 296 ; 16 A.L.R. 1298 .

Signature with lead pencil, 8 A.L.R. 1339 .

Is "until" a word of inclusion or exclusion, 16 A.L.R. 1094 .

Right of one injured while stopping or loitering in street, 24 A.L.R. 766 .

Effect of absence of seal from execution, 28 A.L.R. 936 .

"Property" as including business or profession, 34 A.L.R. 716 .

Stamped, printed, or typewritten signature as compliance with requirement that process or document be "under his hand," 37 A.L.R. 87 .

Title of statutes as an element bearing upon their construction, 37 A.L.R. 927 .

Failure to stop, look, and listen at railroad crossing as negligence per se, 41 A.L.R. 405 .

Insurance: death or injury resulting from insured's voluntary act as caused by accident or accidental means, 42 A.L.R. 243 ; 45 A.L.R. 1528 ; 71 A.L.R. 1437 ; 111 A.L.R. 628 .

Trespass by acts above surface, 42 A.L.R. 945 .

Formalities of administering or making oath, 51 A.L.R. 840 .

Scope and import of term "owner" in statute relating to real property, 95 A.L.R. 1085 .

Constitutionality, construction, and effect of statutes in relation to conduct of driver of automobile after happening of accident, 101 A.L.R. 911 .

Liability for damage or injury by skidding motor vehicle, 113 A.L.R. 1002 .

Inclusion or exclusion of the day of birth in computing one's age, 5 A.L.R.2d 1143.

Relationship between "residence" and "domicile" under venue statutes, 12 A.L.R.2d 757.

Construction and effect in civil actions of statute, ordinance, or regulation requiring vehicles to be stopped or parked parallel with, and within certain distance of, curb, 17 A.L.R.2d 582.

Injury to or death of insured while assaulting another as due to accident or accidental means, 26 A.L.R.2d 399.

Computing interest on basis of 360 days in year, 30 days in month, or the like, as usury, 35 A.L.R.2d 842.

Rupture of blood vessel following exertion or exercise as within terms of accident provision of insurance policy, 35 A.L.R.2d 1105.

Repeated absorption of poisonous substance as "accident" within coverage clause of comprehensive general liability policy, 49 A.L.R.2d 1263.

Fingerprints as signature, 72 A.L.R.2d 1267.

What 12-month period constitutes "year" or "calendar year" as used in public enactment, contract, or other written instrument, 5 A.L.R.3d 584.

Liability insurance: "accident" or "accidental" as including loss resulting from ordinary negligence of insured or his agent, 7 A.L.R.3d 1262.

Discrimination on basis of illegitimacy as denial of constitutional rights, 38 A.L.R.3d 613.

Accident insurance: death or injury intentionally inflicted by another as due to accident or accidental means, 49 A.L.R.3d 673.

Validity and application of provisions governing determination of residency for purpose of fixing fee differential for out-of-state students in public college, 56 A.L.R.3d 641.

Insurance: term "children" as used in beneficiary clause of life insurance policy as including illegitimate child, 62 A.L.R.3d 1329.

Workers' compensation: coverage of employee's injury or death from exposure to the elements - modern cases, 20 A.L.R.5th 346.

Instructions on "unavoidable accident," "mere accident," or the like, in motor vehicle case - modern cases, 21 A.L.R.5th 82.

1-3-4. Effective date of legislative Acts.

  1. Unless a different effective date is specified in an Act:
    1. Any Act which is approved by the Governor or which becomes law without his approval on or after the first day of January and prior to the first day of July of a calendar year shall become effective on the first day of July; and
    2. Any Act which is approved by the Governor or which becomes law without his approval on or after the first day of July and prior to the first day of January of the immediately succeeding calendar year shall become effective on the first day of January.
  2. Subsection (a) of this Code section shall not apply to local legislation or to resolutions intended to have the effect of law. Such local legislation and resolutions intended to have the effect of law become effective immediately upon approval by the Governor or upon their becoming law without his approval, unless a different effective date is specified in the Act or resolution.

    (Ga. L. 1968, p. 1364, § 1; Ga. L. 1969, p. 7, § 1; Ga. L. 1985, p. 984, § 1; Ga. L. 2002, p. 985, § 2.)

Editor's notes. - Ga. L. 1985, p. 984, § 3, not codified by the General Assembly, provided that that Act would apply to general Acts affecting the compensation of the county officers listed in Ga. Const. 1983, Art. IX, Sec. I, Para. III which are enacted after January 1, 1986.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Effective date of amendment to kidnapping statute. - The amendment to the kidnapping statute, O.C.G.A. § 16-5-40 , providing that slight movement is sufficient to prove kidnapping as long as the movement was not incidental to another offense, and defining what actions would not be incidental to another offense, applies to crimes committed on or after the revised statute's effective date, July 1, 2009, pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 1-3-4 . Decoteau v. State, 302 Ga. App. 451 , 691 S.E.2d 328 (2010).

Cited in Pruitt v. State, 123 Ga. App. 659 , 182 S.E.2d 142 (1971); Lott v. State, 123 Ga. App. 781 , 182 S.E.2d 546 (1971); Gunn v. Balkcom, 228 Ga. 802 , 188 S.E.2d 500 (1972); J.C. Penney Co. v. Malouf Co., 125 Ga. App. 832 , 189 S.E.2d 453 (1972); Coe & Payne Co. v. Wood-Mosaic Corp., 125 Ga. App. 845 , 189 S.E.2d 459 (1972); J & L Oil Co. v. City of Carrollton, 230 Ga. 817 , 199 S.E.2d 190 (1973); Jones v. Caldwell, 230 Ga. 775 , 199 S.E.2d 248 (1973); Geiger v. State, 129 Ga. App. 488 , 199 S.E.2d 861 (1973); Montaquila v. Cranford, 129 Ga. App. 787 , 201 S.E.2d 335 (1973); Brinks v. State, 232 Ga. 13 , 205 S.E.2d 247 (1974); DeKalb County v. Chapel Hill, Inc., 232 Ga. 238 , 205 S.E.2d 864 (1974); Kenner v. MacDougall, 232 Ga. 273 , 206 S.E.2d 519 (1974); White v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 131 Ga. App. 630 , 206 S.E.2d 576 (1974); Smith v. State, 132 Ga. App. 199 , 207 S.E.2d 681 (1974); Johnson v. State, 134 Ga. App. 67 , 213 S.E.2d 170 (1975); Brown v. Ricketts, 233 Ga. 809 , 213 S.E.2d 672 (1975); Screamer Mt. Dev., Inc. v. Garner, 234 Ga. 590 , 216 S.E.2d 801 (1975); Town of Lyerly v. Short, 234 Ga. 877 , 218 S.E.2d 588 (1975); Lanthrip v. State, 235 Ga. 10 , 218 S.E.2d 771 (1975); Whitehead v. Hasty, 235 Ga. App. 331 , 219 S.E.2d 443 (1975); Fowler v. State, 235 Ga. 535 , 221 S.E.2d 9 (1975); Carrindine v. Ricketts, 236 Ga. 283 , 223 S.E.2d 627 (1976); Morris v. Morris, 244 Ga. 120 , 259 S.E.2d 65 (1979); Searcy v. State, 162 Ga. App. 695 , 291 S.E.2d 557 (1982); Shook & Fletcher Insulation Co. v. Central Rigging & Contracting Corp., 684 F.2d 1383 (11th Cir. 1982); American Booksellers Ass'n v. Webb, 590 F. Supp. 677 (N.D. Ga. 1984); Robinson v. State, 180 Ga. App. 43 , 348 S.E.2d 662 (1986); Duke v. State, 298 Ga. App. 719 , 681 S.E.2d 174 (2009); Smith v. State, 302 Ga. App. 222 , 690 S.E.2d 867 (2010); Smith v. State, 312 Ga. App. 174 , 718 S.E.2d 43 (2011); City of Brookhaven v. City of Chamblee, 329 Ga. App. 346 , 765 S.E.2d 33 (2014); City of Atlanta v. Mays, 301 Ga. 367 , 801 S.E.2d 1 (2017); Abrams v. Laughlin, 304 Ga. 34 , 816 S.E.2d 26 (2018).

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Retroactive effective date clause in Act is void. - A retroactive effective date clause in an Act is meaningless and void, in which event this Code section supplies the effective date, the same as if no effective date had been specified in the Act. 1976 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 76-76.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur. 2d. - 73 Am. Jur. 2d, Statutes, § 245 et seq.

C.J.S. - 82 C.J.S., Statutes, § 548 et seq.

ALR. - At what stage does a statute or ordinance pass beyond the power of legislative body to reconsider or recall, 96 A.L.R. 1309 .

Date or event contemplated by term "passage," "enactment," "effective date," etc., employed by statute in fixing time of facts or conditions within its operation, 132 A.L.R. 1048 .

1-3-4.1. Effective date for general Acts requiring increases in compensation of certain county officials.

Notwithstanding the provisions of Code Section 1-3-4, no general Act which provides for an increase in compensation to one or more of the county officials listed in Article IX, Section I, Paragraph III of the Constitution or Chapter 10 of Title 15 shall be effective until the first day of January following passage of the Act.

(Code 1981, § 1-3-4.1 , enacted by Ga. L. 1985, p. 984, § 2; Ga. L. 1990, p. 1397, § 1; Ga. L. 1996, p. 1197, § 1; Ga. L. 1997, p. 11, § 1; Ga. L. 2002, p. 985, § 2; Ga. L. 2003, p. 140, § 1.)

Cross references. - Specific provisions regarding compensation of county officers listed in Ga. Const. 1983, Art. IX, Sec. I, Para. III, § 15-6-88 et seq. (clerk of the superior court), § 15-9-63 et seq. (judge of the probate court), § 15-16-20 et seq. (sheriff), §§ 48-5-180 , 48-5-183 (tax receiver, tax collector, and tax commissioner).

Code Commission notes. - Pursuant to Code Section 28-9-5, in 2002, "Code Section" was substituted for "O.C.G.A.R.".

Editor's notes. - Ga. L. 1985, p. 984, § 3, not codified by the General Assembly, provided that that Act would apply to general Acts affecting the compensation of the county officers listed in Ga. Const. 1983, Art. IX, Sec. I, Para. III which are enacted after January 1, 1986.

1-3-5. Operation of laws generally; retrospective operation.

Laws prescribe only for the future; they cannot impair the obligation of contracts nor, ordinarily, have a retrospective operation. Laws looking only to the remedy or mode of trial may apply to contracts, rights, and offenses entered into, accrued, or committed prior to their passage; but in every case a reasonable time subsequent to the passage of the law should be allowed for the citizen to enforce his contract or to protect his right.

(Orig. Code 1863, § 7; Code 1868, § 6; Code 1873, § 6; Code 1882, § 6; Civil Code 1895, § 6; Penal Code 1895, § 3; Civil Code 1910, § 6; Penal Code 1910, § 3; Code 1933, § 102-104.)

Cross references. - Restrictions upon powers of states, U.S. Const., Art. I, Sec. 10, Cl. 1. Bill of attainer; ex post facto laws; and retroactive laws, Ga. Const. 1983, Art. I, Sec. I, Para. X.

Law reviews. - For article, "Synopses of 1968 Amendments Appellate Procedure Act and Georgia Civil Practice Act," see 4 Ga. St. B.J. 503 (1968). For comment on Griffin v. Air S., Inc., 324 F. Supp. 1284 (N.D. Ga. 1971), see 8 Ga. St. B.J. 414 (1972). For comment on statutes of limitations in medical malpractice actions in Georgia, see 33 Mercer L. Rev. 377 (1981).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

ANALYSIS

General Consideration

This is the general rule of statutory construction. Focht v. American Cas. Co., 103 Ga. App. 138 , 118 S.E.2d 737 (1961).

Legislative intent governs whether law prospective in application. - Where it is possible to determine the intent of the General Assembly, unless there are constitutional obstacles, the intent of the General Assembly will govern as to whether a law is prospective only in its application. Focht v. American Cas. Co., 103 Ga. App. 138 , 118 S.E.2d 737 (1961).

Legislation affecting substantive rights operates prospectively only. - Although legislation which involves mere procedural or evidentiary changes may operate retrospectively, legislation which affects substantive rights may operate prospectively only. Enger v. Erwin, 245 Ga. 753 , 267 S.E.2d 25 (1980).

Appellate courts must apply law as it exists at time of the appellate court judgment, even though it may change the judgment of the trial court which was correct at the time it was rendered. Clary v. State, 151 Ga. App. 301 , 259 S.E.2d 697 (1979).

Cited in Hutchinson v. Brown, 47 Ga. App. 82 , 169 S.E. 848 (1933); Hancock County v. Hancock Nat'l Bank, 67 F.2d 421 (5th Cir. 1933); Shaw v. National Life Ins. Co., 180 Ga. 755 , 180 S.E. 721 (1935); Evans v. Evans, 190 Ga. 364 , 9 S.E.2d 254 (1940); Renfroe v. Butts, 192 Ga. 720 , 16 S.E.2d 551 (1941); Lowe v. City of Atlanta, 194 Ga. 317 , 21 S.E.2d 171 (1942); Clarke v. Carlan, 196 Ga. 130 , 26 S.E.2d 362 (1943); Jacobs v. State, 200 Ga. 440 , 37 S.E.2d 187 (1946); Leathers v. Turner, 75 Ga. App. 62 , 41 S.E.2d 921 (1947); Williams Bros. Lumber Co. v. Anderson, 210 Ga. 198 , 78 S.E.2d 612 (1953); Lott v. Lott, 212 Ga. 672 , 94 S.E.2d 869 (1956); Williams v. State, 213 Ga. 221 , 98 S.E.2d 373 (1957); Sharpe v. Lowe, 214 Ga. 513 , 106 S.E.2d 28 (1958); Thompson v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 115 Ga. App. 724 , 155 S.E.2d 728 (1967); F.H. Ross & Co. v. White, 224 Ga. 324 , 161 S.E.2d 857 (1968); Hare v. United Airlines Corp., 295 F. Supp. 860 (N.D. Ga. 1968); Cohen v. Garland, 119 Ga. App. 333 , 167 S.E.2d 599 (1969); Hawes v. National Serv. Indus., Inc., 121 Ga. App. 775 , 175 S.E.2d 34 (1970); Elliott v. Leavitt, 122 Ga. App. 622 , 178 S.E.2d 268 (1970); Southern Land, Timber & Pulp Corp. v. United States, 322 F. Supp. 788 (N.D. Ga. 1970); Todd v. State, 228 Ga. 746 , 187 S.E.2d 831 (1972); Turner v. Bank of Zebulon, 128 Ga. App. 404 , 196 S.E.2d 668 (1973); Montaquila v. Cranford, 129 Ga. App. 787 , 201 S.E.2d 335 (1973); Nelson v. Bloodworth, 238 Ga. 264 , 232 S.E.2d 547 (1977); Wansor v. George Hantscho Co., 243 Ga. 91 , 252 S.E.2d 623 (1979); Insurance Co. of N. Am. v. Henson, 150 Ga. App. 788 , 258 S.E.2d 706 (1979); Holley v. State, 157 Ga. App. 863 , 278 S.E.2d 738 (1981); Smith v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R., 639 F.2d 1235 (5th Cir. 1981); Allrid v. Emory Univ., 248 Ga. 588 , 285 S.E.2d 521 (1982); DOT v. Delta Mach. Prods. Co., 162 Ga. App. 252 , 291 S.E.2d 104 (1982); Henderson v. State, 162 Ga. App. 320 , 292 S.E.2d 77 (1982); Municipal & Indus. Pipe Serv., Ltd. v. Walter E. Heller & Co., 163 Ga. App. 677 , 296 S.E.2d 68 (1982); Buckley v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 165 Ga. App. 838 , 299 S.E.2d 744 (1983); Synalloy Corp. v. Newton, 171 Ga. App. 194 , 319 S.E.2d 32 (1984); Eig v. Savage, 177 Ga. App. 514 , 339 S.E.2d 752 (1986); Dunn v. State, 177 Ga. App. 6 , 341 S.E.2d 877 (1986); Godfrey v. State, 183 Ga. App. 183 , 358 S.E.2d 264 (1987); A.H. Friedman, Inc. v. Augusta Burglar Alarm Co., 186 Ga. App. 769 , 368 S.E.2d 534 (1988); LFE Corp. v. Edenfield, 187 Ga. App. 785 , 371 S.E.2d 435 (1988); Department of Cors. v. Hicks, 209 Ga. App. 165 , 433 S.E.2d 64 (1993); Bieling v. Battle, 209 Ga. App. 874 , 434 S.E.2d 719 (1993); Sardy v. Hodge, 264 Ga. 548 , 448 S.E.2d 355 (1994).

Impairing Obligation of Contracts

Repealing Act will not be given a retroactive operation, so as to divest previously acquired rights, or to impair the obligation of a contract lawfully made by virtue of and pending the existence of the law repealed. Bank of Norman Park v. Colquitt County, 169 Ga. 534 , 150 S.E. 841 (1929).

Substantive right which has vested cannot be changed or impaired by a subsequent statute. Spengler v. Employers Com. Union Ins. Co., 131 Ga. App. 443 , 206 S.E.2d 693 (1974).

Test is whether there was a vested right. If so, no subsequent legislative Act could impair it, but if not, there is no bar to a change or abolition of it at any time before it becomes fixed by a judgment. Spengler v. Employers Com. Union Ins. Co., 131 Ga. App. 443 , 206 S.E.2d 693 (1974); Aetna Ins. Co. v. Windsor, 133 Ga. App. 159 , 210 S.E.2d 373 (1974).

This section forbids the passage of laws which impair vested rights. The test is whether there was a vested right. If so, no subsequent legislative Act could impair it, but if not, there is no bar to a change or abolition of it at any time before it becomes fixed by a judgment. Goolsby v. Regents of Univ. Sys., 141 Ga. App. 605 , 234 S.E.2d 165 (1977).

Subrogation rights. - Any subrogation rights are vested and therefore cannot be abrogated by a later statute. Blaylock v. Georgia Mut. Ins. Co., 239 Ga. 462 , 238 S.E.2d 105 (1977).

Subsequent legislation cannot impair rights created by constitutional Act. - A constitutional Act of the General Assembly is equivalent to a contract, and when performed, is a contract executed; whatever rights are thereby created, subsequent legislation cannot impair. Spengler v. Employers Com. Union Ins. Co., 131 Ga. App. 443 , 206 S.E.2d 693 (1974).

A constitutional Act of the General Assembly has been found to be the equivalent of a contract and the rights created thereby may not be impaired by subsequent legislation. Enger v. Erwin, 245 Ga. 753 , 267 S.E.2d 25 (1980).

Section applicable to contracts existing at time of section's enactment. - This section, so far as it inhibits the state from passing a law impairing the obligation of contracts, applies to contracts existing at the time of the enactment of the section. Redd v. Hargroves, 40 Ga. 18 (1869). ; see also Bass v. Ware, 34 Ga. 386 (1866).

Legislative instructions to officer resorted to in determining Act's intention. - The General Assembly cannot, by resolution, change the obligation of a contract made under a previous Act. But if they instruct a public officer as to his duties under the contract, the resulting duties may be resorted to in determining the intention of the General Assembly in passing the Act. Georgia Penitentiary Co. No. 2 v. Nelms, 65 Ga. 67 (1880).

State's obligation to pay bonds not impaired by requiring registration. - An Act requiring registration of past matured bonds neither repudiates bonds, nor takes away any remedy from the holder, nor impairs the state's obligation to pay any valid bonds. Gurnee, Jr. & Co. v. Speer, 68 Ga. 711 (1882).

Employment contract not impaired by taking away employer's right against interfering parties. - An Act taking away the right of an employer against parties interfering with the contract of employment does not impair the obligation of the contract. Caldwell v. O'Neal, 117 Ga. 775 , 45 S.E. 41 (1903).

Land purchaser under deed older than former provision may acquire title to growing crops. - Former Code 1910, § 3651 (1), which declares all crops to be personalty, does not prevent the purchaser of lands under a security deed older than the section from acquiring the title to crops growing in such lands. Chason v. O'Neal, 158 Ga. 725 , 124 S.E. 519 (1924) For present comparable provisions, (see O.C.G.A. § 11-2-107 ).

Contract by county school superintendent in 1918 for school supplies not void. - A contract made and an indebtedness incurred by a county superintendent of schools in 1918, on behalf of the county board of education, for school supplies and furnishings, which were placed in the schoolhouses of the county and put to use by the pupils thereof, was prior to the enactment of former Code 1933, § 32-928 (see now O.C.G.A. § 20-2-504 ,) and therefore was not void under this provision, which was applicable to contracts made before its passage. Board of Educ. v. Southern Mich. Nat'l Bank, 184 Ga. 641 , 192 S.E. 382 (1937).

Provisions on reversion of realty to guarantor unconstitutional as applied to prior executed deed. - Ga. L. 1953, Nov.-Dec. Sess., p. 313, § 1 (see now O.C.G.A. § 44-14-80 ), providing that title to real property conveyed to secure a debt should revert to the grantor when the debt becomes 20 years past due, imposed conditions upon a grantee not in existence at the time of the execution of the grantee's contract, divested the grantee of the grantee's vested right to the property, and impaired the obligation of the grantee's contract, and, as applied to the deed, which was executed prior to the passage and effective date of the section, is unconstitutional. Todd v. Morgan, 215 Ga. 220 , 109 S.E.2d 803 (1959).

Application to O.C.G.A. § 16-17-1 . - Request by creditors for a preliminary injunction blocking the enforcement of O.C.G.A. §§ 16-17-1 to 16-17-10 (the Act), which prohibited payday loans, did not address a case or controversy because the Act did not apply retroactively to loans made before its effective date; even if the Georgia Attorney General had not explicitly conceded this point, O.C.G.A. § 1-3-5 prohibited the retroactive application to impair the obligation of existing contracts. BankWest, Inc. v. Baker, 446 F.3d 1358 (11th Cir. 2006).

Retrospective Operation

What enactments are prohibited. - Only retrospective enactments which are ex post facto in their character, that is, those whose effect is to impair the obligation of contracts, or to divest vested rights, are within the constitutional prohibition against retroactive legislation. Hart v. Owens-Illinois, Inc., 161 Ga. App. 831 , 289 S.E.2d 544 , rev'd on other grounds, 250 Ga. 397 , 297 S.E.2d 462 (1982).

Retrospective statutes are forbidden by the first principles of justice. Redd v. Hargroves, 40 Ga. 18 (1869); Jones v. Rountree, 96 Ga. 230 , 23 S.E. 311 (1895); Bank of Norman Park v. Colquitt County, 169 Ga. 534 , 150 S.E. 841 (1929).

Retroactive laws are prohibited. Anthony v. Penn, 212 Ga. 292 , 92 S.E.2d 14 (1956).

Ex post facto laws are prohibited. Akins v. State, 231 Ga. 411 , 202 S.E.2d 62 (1973).

Term "ex post facto" refers to criminal statutes. Goolsby v. Regents of Univ. Sys., 141 Ga. App. 605 , 234 S.E.2d 165 (1977).

Settled rule for the construction of statutes, is not to give them a retrospective operation, unless the language so imperatively requires. Moore v. Gill, 43 Ga. 388 (1871); Bussey v. Bishop, 169 Ga. 251 , 150 S.E. 78 (1929); Bank of Norman Park v. Colquitt County, 169 Ga. 534 , 150 S.E. 841 (1929); Seaboard Air Line Ry. v. Benton, 175 Ga. 491 , 165 S.E. 593 (1932); Walker County Fertilizer Co. v. Napier, 184 Ga. 861 , 193 S.E. 770 (1937); National Sur. Corp. v. Gatlin, 192 Ga. 293 , 15 S.E.2d 180 (1941); FDIC v. Beasley, 193 Ga. 727 , 20 S.E.2d 23 (1942); Eibel v. Forrester, 194 Ga. 439 , 22 S.E.2d 96 (1942); Jaro, Inc. v. Shields, 123 Ga. App. 391 , 181 S.E.2d 110 (1971); Town of Lyerly v. Short, 234 Ga. 877 , 218 S.E.2d 588 (1975); Watkins v. Barber-Colman Co., 625 F.2d 714 (5th Cir. 1980); Landmark Fin. Corp. v. Cox, 2 Bankr. 739 (S.D. Ga. 1980).

Laws prescribe only for the future. and generally have no retroactive operation, and the settled rule for the construction of statutes is not to give them a retrospective operation, unless the language imperatively requires such construction. London Guarantee & Accident Co. v. Pittman, 69 Ga. App. 146 , 25 S.E.2d 60 (1943).

Laws prescribe for the future. Unless a statute, either expressly or by necessary implication, shows that the General Assembly intended that it operate retroactively, it will be given only prospective application. Anthony v. Penn, 212 Ga. 292 , 92 S.E.2d 14 (1956).

Statutes operate retrospectively where legislative intent or purpose clear. - Statutes prescribe only for the future and generally do not have a retrospective operation. They shall be so construed as to give them a prospective operation only, and they shall be permitted to operate retrospectively only where the intention to have them so operate is clear and undoubted. Talmadge v. Cordell, 170 Ga. 13 , 152 S.E. 91 (1930).

The general rule is that laws prescribe only for the future and usually will not be given a retrospective operation; however, they will be given a retrospective effect when the language imperatively requires it, or when an examination of the Act as a whole leads clearly to the conclusion that such was the legislative purpose. Barnett v. D.O. Martin Co., 191 Ga. 11 , 11 S.E.2d 210 (1940).

The general rule is that laws prescribe only for the future and usually will not be given a retrospective operation. They will be given a retrospective effect, however, when the language imperatively requires it, or when an examination of the Act as a whole leads clearly to the conclusion that such was the legislative purpose. It is at last and always a question of legislative intent. Biddle v. Moore, 87 Ga. App. 524 , 74 S.E.2d 552 (1953).

O.C.G.A. § 1-3-5 expresses only a preference against retroactive applications. It does not absolutely forbid retroactive applications. Ferrero v. Associated Materials, Inc., 923 F.2d 1441 (11th Cir. 1991).

Where no express intent, presumed that legislation prospective. - Where the legislative intent as to whether a statute is to be given retrospective effect is not expressly stated, it is presumed that the intent was that the legislation be prospective in effect. Biddle v. Moore, 87 Ga. App. 524 , 74 S.E.2d 552 (1953).

Amendments of previous statutes are construed as intended to have operation on future transactions only, and as having no retrospective purpose not plainly expressed in the amendment. FDIC v. Beasley, 193 Ga. 727 , 20 S.E.2d 23 (1942).

It is a general rule applicable to amending statutes that they are to be construed as intended to have operation on future transactions only, and as having no retroactive purpose not plainly expressed. Layton v. Liberty Loans, 152 Ga. App. 504 , 263 S.E.2d 167 (1979), rev'd on other grounds, Finance Am. Corp. v. Drake, 154 Ga. App. 811 , 270 S.E.2d 449 (1980).

Trial court did not err when the court applied the 2006 version of O.C.G.A. § 9-11-68 in the property owners' action against the builders because inasmuch as the owners did not obtain any judgment amount in the owners favor it did not matter whether the original or amended version of the statute was applied, or whether the amendment was substantive or procedural in nature; under either version of the statute the owners were liable for the builders' reasonable fees and expenses from the date the offer of settlement was rejected. O'Leary v. Whitehall Constr., 288 Ga. 790 , 708 S.E.2d 353 (2011).

Former O.C.G.A. 11-9-403 construed. - The legislature intended that the 1985 amendment of former O.C.G.A. § 11-9-403 (filing of financing statement) should apply to financing statements originally filed on or after July 1, 1985 and should not apply retroactively to prior filed financing statements. Rainbow Mfg. Co. v. Bank of Fitzgerald, 129 Bankr. 702 (Bankr. M.D. Ga. 1991), rev'd on other grounds, 150 Bankr. 857 (M.D. Ga. 1993).

Repealing Act will not be given a retrospective operation. Dennington v. Mayor of Roberta, 130 Ga. 494 , 61 S.E. 20 (1908).

Statute creating new obligation, or destroying or impairing vested rights, deemed retroactive. - A statute is "retroactive" in the legal sense when it creates a new obligation on transactions or considerations already past, or destroys or impairs vested rights. Ross v. Lettice, 134 Ga. 866 , 68 S.E. 734 (1910).

Upon principle, every statute which takes away or impairs vested rights acquired under existing laws, or creates a new obligation, imposes a new duty, or attaches a new disability, in respect to transactions or considerations already past, must be deemed retrospective. London Guarantee & Accident Co. v. Pittman, 69 Ga. App. 146 , 25 S.E.2d 60 (1943).

Statute intending to affect antecedent transactions and rights. - A statute does not operate retrospectively because it relates to antecedent facts, but if it is intended to affect transactions which occurred or rights which accrued before it became operative as such, and ascribe to them essentially different effects, in view of the law at the time of their occurrence, it is retroactive in character. London Guarantee & Accident Co. v. Pittman, 69 Ga. App. 146 , 25 S.E.2d 60 (1943).

A statute is "retroactive" in its legal sense which creates a new obligation on transactions or considerations already past, or destroys or impairs vested rights. A statute does not operate retrospectively because it relates to antecedent facts, but if it is intended to affect transactions which occurred or rights which accrued before it became operative as such, and ascribe to them essentially different effects, in view of the law at the time of their occurrence, it is retroactive in character. Todd v. Morgan, 215 Ga. 220 , 109 S.E.2d 803 (1959).

Section on "new county" not applicable to existing counties. - The words "new county," as used in a section which relates to charging the administration of an estate, did not apply to counties existing at the time the section became effective. Jones v. Rountree, 96 Ga. 230 , 23 S.E. 311 (1895).

Legislative Acts will not be so construed where they would effect revocation of a will. Redd v. Hargroves, 40 Ga. 18 (1869).

Title 33 (Insurance) was not intended to and could not have had any retrospective effect. Chatham County Hosp. Auth. v. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co., 325 F. Supp. 614 (S.D. Ga. 1971).

Georgia workers' compensation law that takes effect after an employment relationship is terminated should not be applied to determine the liability of a party to that relationship since such would constitute an impermissible retrospective application of the law. Hall v. Synalloy Corp., 540 F. Supp. 263 (S.D. Ga. 1982).

Product liability provision not given retroactive effect. - Since a new cause of action in tort has been established by the General Assembly by its amendment of former Code 1933, § 105-106 (see now O.C.G.A. § 51-1-11 ) in 1968, it follows that this provision may not be given retroactive effect. Wansor v. George Hantscho Co., 595 F.2d 218 (5th Cir. 1979).

O.C.G.A. § 13-8-2.1 construed. - Retroactive application of O.C.G.A. § 13-8-2.1 , permitting contracts in partial restraint of trade, did not violate this Code section. Ferrero v. Associated Materials, Inc., 923 F.2d 1441 (11th Cir. 1991).

Criminal Justice Act construed. - Upon the defendant's constitutional challenge to the retrospective application of three provisions of the Criminal Justice Act, 2005 Ga. Laws 20 (Act), no reversible error resulted from challenges to the closing arguments and admission of character evidence, as: (1) the former was not distinctly ruled upon by the lower court; and (2) the lower court sustained objections to the admissibility of character evidence, and thus, the state could not introduce character evidence regarding the defendant's prior criminal convictions; moreover, a change in the number of the defendant's peremptory challenges by the Act did not affect any protected right by the application of the amended version of O.C.G.A. § 15-12-165 , as strikes were procedural and not substantive in nature. Madison v. State, 281 Ga. 640 , 641 S.E.2d 789 (2007).

Remedial Laws

Laws operating upon the remedy are not unconstitutional and void. Crawford v. Irwin, 211 Ga. 241 , 85 S.E.2d 8 (1954).

Remedial change in the law may validly operate retroactively. Bryan v. Bryan, 242 Ga. 826 , 251 S.E.2d 566 (1979).

Statutes which are merely remedial in nature may be applied to pending actions. Landmark Fin. Corp. v. Cox, 2 Bankr. 739 (S.D. Ga. 1980).

Mere remedial Acts may apply to rights accruing prior to their passage. Bauer Int'l Corp. v. Cagle's, Inc., 225 Ga. 684 , 171 S.E.2d 314 (1969).

Georgia Whistleblower Act amendments not retroactive. - New remedies under O.C.G.A. § 45-1-4(e)(2) and (f), which were added by a 2005 amendment to the Georgia Whistleblower Act (GWA), do not apply retroactively under O.C.G.A. § 1-3-5 ; thus, a port authority officer who asserted claims under the GWA in connection with the officer's 2004 discharge was limited to the remedies provided by the GWA as the GWA existed in 2004. Pattee v. Ga. Ports Auth., 477 F. Supp. 2d 1253 (S.D. Ga. Dec. 18, 2006).

Curing remedy's defects, or conforming or enforcing rights. - Laws curing defects in the remedy, or confirming rights already existing, or adding to the means of securing and enforcing the rights, may be passed and applied retroactively. Bituminous Cas. Corp. v. R.D.C., Inc., 334 F. Supp. 1163 (N.D. Ga. 1971).

State may vary or modify remedies if substantive character not destroyed. - So long as the state undertakes to furnish remedies, it may vary or modify them at pleasure, if the state does not destroy their substantive character. Cutts & Johnson v. Hardee, 38 Ga. 350 (1868). ; see also Gardner v. Georgia R.R. & Banking Co., 117 Ga. 522 , 43 S.E. 863 (1903) (construing former Code 1895, § 4657 et seq.)

Retrospective statutes not void where they only confirm existing rights, cure defects, and enforce existing obligations. Remedial statutes, although retrospective, are not void, provided they do not impair contracts or disturb absolute vested rights, and only go to confirm rights already existing, and in furtherance of the remedy, by curing defects and adding to the means of enforcing existing obligations. Union Dry Goods Co. v. Georgia Pub. Serv. Corp., 142 Ga. 841 , 83 S.E. 946 , 1916E L.R.A. 358 (1914), aff'd, 248 U.S. 372, 39 S. Ct. 117 , 63 L. Ed. 309 , 9 A.L.R. 1420 (1919).

Remedial statutes are operative, although of a retrospective nature, provided they do not impair contracts, and only go to confirm rights already existing, and in furtherance of the remedy, by curing defects and adding to the means of enforcing existing obligations. Seaboard Air Line Ry. v. Benton, 175 Ga. 491 , 165 S.E. 593 (1932).

Laws which act upon remedies alone, although retrospective, will be enforced, provided they do not impair the obligation of contracts or disturb absolutely vested rights, and only go to confirm rights already existing, and in furtherance of the remedy, by curing defects and adding to the means of enforcing existing obligations. Byers v. Black Motor Co., 65 Ga. App. 773 , 16 S.E.2d 478 (1941).

Where new statute substantial reenactment of old, remedies remain in force. - As a general rule, the repeal of a statute without any reservation takes away all remedies given by the repealed statute. But where a new statute is a substantial reenactment of an old one, and expressly recognizes and makes provision in regard to the rights and remedies which accrued under it, the general rule is not applicable and the remedies remain in force. Lanham & Sons Co. v. City of Rome, 136 Ga. 398 , 71 S.E. 770 (1911).

Statutes relating to remedies or procedure may be given retrospective construction. - A generally recognized exception to the rule that laws prescribe only for the future is that statutes relating to remedies or procedure may be given a retrospective or retroactive construction. Focht v. American Cas. Co., 103 Ga. App. 138 , 118 S.E.2d 737 (1961).

The presumption against a retrospective construction has no application to enactments which affect only the procedure and practice of the courts, even where the alteration which the statutes make has been disadvantageous to one of the parties. Hart v. Owens-Illinois, Inc., 161 Ga. App. 831 , 289 S.E.2d 544 , rev'd on other grounds, 250 Ga. 397 , 297 S.E.2d 462 (1982).

Prohibition of ex post facto laws applies only to substantive, but not procedural, rights. Cannon v. State, 246 Ga. 754 , 272 S.E.2d 709 (1980).

Section distinguishes laws looking to remedy or mode of trial. - Georgia has a statutory policy disapproving the retroactive application of new statutes. However, this section expressly distinguishes laws looking only to the remedy or mode of trial. Sanks v. Georgia, 401 U.S. 144, 91 S. Ct. 593 , 27 L. Ed. 2 d 741 (1971).

Repealing statute regulating court procedure not within section's inhibition. - A repealing statute which did not deprive the defendant of any substantial right but only regulated the procedure of the court, in which the defendant could acquire no right, is not within the inhibition against the passage of retroactive laws. Pritchard v. Savannah St. & Rural Resort R.R., 87 Ga. 294 , 13 S.E. 493 , 14 L.R.A. 721 (1891); Baker v. Smith, 91 Ga. 142 , 16 S.E. 967 (1893).

Statute void if it takes substantial right from accused. - While it is the rule that no one has a vested right in a mere mode of procedure, so that a statute merely regulating procedure and leaving untouched all the substantial protections with which existing law surrounds the person accused of a crime is not within the constitutional inhibition against ex post facto laws, yet a statute is void and ineffective as related to previous offenses if it takes from the accused a substantial right given to the accused by the law in force at the time to which the accused's guilt relates, and such a statute cannot be sustained simply because, in a general sense, it may be said to regulate procedure. Winston v. State, 186 Ga. 573 , 198 S.E. 667 (1938).

Act which merely changes rule of evidence is within the sphere of ordinary legislative competency. Slaughter v. Culpepper, 35 Ga. 25 (1866).

There is no ground upon which to hold a statute to be ex post facto which does nothing more than admit evidence of a particular kind in a criminal case upon an issue of fact which was not admissible under the rules of evidence as enforced at the time the offense was committed. Bryan v. Bryan, 242 Ga. 826 , 251 S.E.2d 566 (1979).

Procedure changed pending appeal. - Where the controlling procedural rule is changed pending appeal, the case must be concluded in the trial court pursuant to the changed provisions of the rule. Clary v. State, 151 Ga. App. 301 , 259 S.E.2d 697 (1979).

Changing municipal tax laws. - The changing of municipal tax laws by an Act of the General Assembly is not contrary to this section because the change applies to taxes due at the time of the passage of the Act where the change only affects the remedy. DuBignon v. Mayor of Brunswick, 106 Ga. 317 , 32 S.E. 102 (1898).

Act enforcing previously fixed stockholders' liability. - Where the stockholders' liability is fixed by one Act, and a subsequent Act provides that this liability shall be considered as an asset of the bank and enforced by the receiver, the latter Act is remedial in its nature, does not affect any vested right of the creditor, and is applicable. Moore v. Ripley, 106 Ga. 556 , 32 S.E. 647 (1899).

Act providing for cost of paving, passed after Act providing for paving, is not unlawful or objectionable. Georgia Ry. & Elec. Co. v. Town of Decatur, 29 Ga. App. 653 , 116 S.E. 645 (1923). ; see also Allen v. Schweigert, 110 Ga. 323 , 35 S.E. 315 (1900); Mills v. Geer, 111 Ga. 275 , 36 S.E. 673 , 52 L.R.A. 934 (1900); Ross v. Lettice, 134 Ga. 866 , 68 S.E. 734 (1910).

Doctrine of election of remedies. - Almost by definition, the doctrine of election of remedies is procedural and remedial in nature. Douglas County v. Abercrombie, 119 Ga. App. 727 , 168 S.E.2d 870 (1969).

Statute of limitation is remedial in nature. Jaro, Inc. v. Shields, 123 Ga. App. 391 , 181 S.E.2d 110 (1971).

Three-year statute of limitations that was added to the Georgia Whistleblower Act (GWA) in 2005 in O.C.G.A. § 45-1-4(e)(1) is prospective in nature pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 1-3-5 ; thus, a port authority officer's GWA claim, which related to the officer's 2004 discharge, was not affected by the amendment. Pattee v. Ga. Ports Auth., 477 F. Supp. 2d 1253 (S.D. Ga. Dec. 18, 2006).

Ga. L. 1968, p. 1419, § 2 (see now O.C.G.A. § 9-10-90 ), which specifically includes corporations in meaning of term "nonresident," may be applied retroactively. Griffin v. Air S., Inc., 324 F. Supp. 1284 (N.D. Ga. 1971), commented on in 8 Ga. St. B.J. 414 (1972).

Former paragraph (3) of Ga. L. 1966, p. 343, § 1 (see now O.C.G.A. § 9-10-91 ) may be applied retroactively. Griffin v. Air S., Inc., 324 F. Supp. 1284 (N.D. Ga. 1971), commented on in 8 Ga. St. B.J. 414 (1972).

Subjecting nonresident corporation to jurisdiction retroactively. - Nonresident corporation may be subjected retroactively to the jurisdiction of this state. Bituminous Cas. Corp. v. R.D.C., Inc., 334 F. Supp. 1163 (N.D. Ga. 1971).

Convictions occurring before sentencing provision's enactment. - The use of prior convictions which had occurred before the enactment of former Code 1933, § 27-2503 (see now O.C.G.A. § 17-10-2 ), in the sentencing phase of the trial did not amount to an ex post facto application of law. Solomon v. State, 247 Ga. 27 , 277 S.E.2d 1 (1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 1011, 101 S. Ct. 2348 , 68 L. Ed. 2 d 863 (1981).

Act denying all remedies on a contract would impair its obligation and be void. West v. Sansom, 44 Ga. 295 (1871).

Amendment to workers' compensation provision on modifying award. - The 1937 amendment to former Code 1933, § 114-709 (see now O.C.G.A. § 34-9-104 ), in which the time for filing applications to review an award on a change in condition is limited to two years from the date the Industrial Board (now State Board of Workers' Compensation) is notified of the final payment of the claim, does not cover a case where the employee was injured before the adoption of the amendment, although the report of final payment of the claim was made after the amendment. London Guarantee & Accident Co. v. Pittman, 69 Ga. App. 146 , 25 S.E.2d 60 (1943).

Survival statutes. - A statute authorizing the recovery of medical and funeral expenses by the personal representative of the estate in cases of wrongful death and a statute providing for the survival of causes of action confers upon the personal representative a new substantive right and are not remedial only. Such statutes, therefore, may not be given a retrospective effect so as to apply to the estate of one who died prior to their passage. Biddle v. Moore, 87 Ga. App. 524 , 74 S.E.2d 552 (1953).

Not reversible error for court to use term "prisoner at bar" instead of "accused." - Where the trial court uses the term "the prisoner at bar" instead of "the accused" in its first two voir dire questions in a case prior to the General Assembly changing the terms, it is not reversible error. Clary v. State, 151 Ga. App. 301 , 259 S.E.2d 697 (1979).

Issue of attorney's fees in divorce cases is remedial and ought to be considered broadly by the trial court. Crecelius v. Brooks, 258 Ga. 372 , 369 S.E.2d 743 (1988).

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Prospective construction. - In absence of imperative, contrary language, statute is construed to operate prospectively and not retrospectively. 1971 Op. Att'y Gen. No. U71-125.

Laws may apply retroactively when vested rights are not impaired and where intended to do so by the General Assembly. 1972 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 72-34.

Veterans taking state examination prior to 1960 cannot have preference points. - Applicants who took an examination and received their scores prior to the effective date of Ga. L. 1960, p. 1172, §§ 1 and 2 (see now O.C.G.A. §§ 43-1-9 and 43-1-10 ), cannot have veterans' preference points applied to those scores. 1972 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 72-119.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur. 2d. - 16A Am. Jur. 2d, Constitutional Law, §§ 382, 392 et seq. 73 Am. Jur. 2d, Statutes, § 231 et seq.

C.J.S. - 16A C.J.S., Constitutional Law, § 645 et seq. 82 C.J.S., Statutes, §§ 375 et seq., 394, 574 et seq.

ALR. - Unconstitutional statute or veto as protection against civil or criminal responsibility for act or omission in reliance thereon, 53 A.L.R. 268 .

Retrospective operation of succession tax, 66 A.L.R. 404 ; 109 A.L.R. 858 ; 114 A.L.R. 518 .

Construction of statutes of limitations as regards their retrospective application to causes of action already barred, 67 A.L.R. 297 .

Applicability of constitutional provision requiring reenactment of altered or amended statute to one which leaves intact terms of original statute, but transfers or extends its operation to another field, 67 A.L.R. 564 .

Retroactive effect of statutes relating to interest on or penalties in respect of delinquent taxes, 77 A.L.R. 1034 .

Retrospective effect of statute relating to causes of action for death dependent upon prior statute, 77 A.L.R. 1338 .

Retroactive effect of statutes regarding provisions with reference to avoidance of fire insurance policies, 78 A.L.R. 617 .

Constitutional provision against impairing obligation of contract as applicable to statutes affecting rights or remedies of holders or owners of improvement bonds or liens, 85 A.L.R. 244 ; 97 A.L.R. 911 .

Retroactive effect of statute relating to exemption of proceeds of life or benefit insurance, 92 A.L.R. 1388 .

Debtor's exemption statutes as impairing obligations of existing contracts, 93 A.L.R. 177 .

At what stage does a statute or ordinance pass beyond the power of legislative body to reconsider or recall, 96 A.L.R. 1309 .

Retrospective operation of statutes relating to alimony or suit money in divorce, 97 A.L.R. 1188 .

Retroactive effect of statute prescribing terms or rights under life insurance policies, 106 A.L.R. 46 .

Retrospective operation of succession or estate tax, 114 A.L.R. 518 .

Retroactive application of repeal of statute which operated as limitation of or exception to a substantive right of action in tort otherwise arising at common law, 120 A.L.R. 943 .

Power of legislature to revive a right of action barred by limitation or to revive an action which has abated by lapse of time, 133 A.L.R. 384 .

Validity and effect, as to previously recorded instrument, of statute which places or changes time limit on effectiveness of record of mortgages or other instruments, 133 A.L.R. 1325 .

Price ceiling, adopted as a war measure, as affecting preexisting contracts, 147 A.L.R. 1286 ; 149 A.L.R. 1451 ; 151 A.L.R. 1450 .

Constitutionality, construction, and application of statute or contract regarding deduction from, or adjustment of, wages in respect of defective workmanship, 153 A.L.R. 866 .

Statute providing for apportionment between lessor and lessee of a tax imposed upon the producer of oil, gas, or other natural production as violation of the constitutional provisions against impairment of the obligation of contracts, 160 A.L.R. 980 .

Effect, as to prior offenses, of amendment increasing punishment for crime, 167 A.L.R. 845 .

Validity of curative statute impairing judgment or rendering it ineffective, 171 A.L.R. 1352 .

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.

Retrospective operation of criminal negligence statute, 14 A.L.R.2d 726.

What law, in point of time, governs as to inheritance from or through adoptive parent, 18 A.L.R.2d 960.

Retrospective application of statutes relating to trust investments, 35 A.L.R.2d 991.

Retroactive effect of statute fixing minimum value of corporate stock shares or otherwise affecting power of corporation to change par value of existing shares, 54 A.L.R.2d 1289.

Retroactive effect of statute changing manner and method of distribution of recovery or settlement for wrongful death, 66 A.L.R.2d 1444.

Retroactive effect of statute which imposes, removes, or changes a monetary limitation of recovery for personal injury or death, 98 A.L.R.2d 1105.

Retrospective application of state statute substituting rule of comparative negligence for that of contributory negligence, 37 A.L.R.3d 1438.

Retroactive effect of zoning regulation, in absence of saving clause, on validly issued building permit, 49 A.L.R.3d 13.

Zoning provisions protecting land owners who applied for or received building permit prior to change in zoning, 49 A.L.R.3d 1150.

Validity of statute establishing or authorizing minimum price schedules for barbers, 54 A.L.R.3d 916.

Construction and effect of tenure provisions of contract or statute governing employment of college or university faculty member, 66 A.L.R.3d 1018.

Validity and construction of state or local regulation prohibiting off-premises advertising structures, 81 A.L.R.3d 486.

Validity and construction of state or local regulation prohibiting the erection or maintenance of advertising structures within a specified distance of street or highway, 81 A.L.R.3d 564.

Mandatory retirement of public officer or employee based on age, 81 A.L.R.3d 811.

Zoning: building in course of construction as establishing valid nonconforming use or vested right to complete construction for intended use, 89 A.L.R.3d 1051.

1-3-6. When laws become obligatory; effect of ignorance.

After they take effect, the laws of this state are obligatory upon all the inhabitants thereof. Ignorance of the law excuses no one.

(Orig. Code 1863, § 8; Code 1868, § 7; Code 1873, § 7; Code 1882, § 7; Civil Code 1895, § 7; Penal Code 1895, § 4; Civil Code 1910, § 7; Penal Code 1910, § 4; Code 1933, § 102-105.)

Law reviews. - For annual survey of law on administrative law, see 62 Mercer L. Rev. 1 (2010).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Section applies to attorneys. Crudup v. State, 106 Ga. App. 833 , 129 S.E.2d 183 (1962), aff'd, 218 Ga. 819 , 130 S.E.2d 733 , cert. denied, 375 U.S. 829, 84 S. Ct. 74 , 11 L. Ed. 2 d 61 (1963).

Section applies to law enforcement officers. - Hameen v. State, 246 Ga. App. 599 , 541 S.E.2d 668 (2000).

This principle of law has been applied to municipal ordinances. City Council v. Crump, 251 Ga. 594 , 308 S.E.2d 180 (1983).

Ignorance of law no excuse for granting relief against consequences of voluntary actions. - Mere ignorance of law on the part of one who, with full knowledge of all the facts, voluntarily takes steps with regard thereto which operates to one's prejudice, affords no ground for granting one relief against the consequences of one's own folly, though one may in good faith have labored under a misapprehension as to the legal effect of the course one elected to pursue. Atlanta Trust & Banking Co. v. Nelms, 116 Ga. 915 , 43 S.E. 380 (1903).

Where a plea amounts to nothing but ignorance of the law, the plea is bad. Jenkins v. German Lutheran Congregation, 58 Ga. 125 (1877).

Ignorance of the law does not commend a suitor in equity, especially where an injunction is sought. Moore v. City of Atlanta, 70 Ga. 611 (1883).

Failure to comprehend the legal effect of making an admission in judicio, in a motion for new trial or in the alternative motion to amend judgment, of the fact that the probate court entered a judgment styled "final order" provided no excuse for the maker, since ignorance of the law excuses no one. Jabaley v. Jabaley, 208 Ga. App. 179 , 430 S.E.2d 119 (1993).

Ignorance of glazing requirements. - Fact that landlord was unaware that state law required safety glazing materials in doors under O.C.G.A. § 8-2-91 is no defense under O.C.G.A. 1-3-6 . Cornell v. Camellia Corp., 248 Ga. 449 , 283 S.E.2d 264 (1981), appeal dismissed, 456 U.S. 901, 102 S. Ct. 1744 , 72 L. Ed. 2 d 157 (1982).

Defendant not relieved of criminal intent if intended to do prohibited act. - The fact that the defendant was ignorant of the fact that the defendant was violating the law would not relieve the defendant of criminal intent if the defendant intended to do the act which the General Assembly prohibited (carrying on a "clearinghouse" for the hazarding of money). Wilson v. State, 57 Ga. App. 839 , 197 S.E. 48 (1938).

Amendment pleading Act approved after suit instituted. - Generally, laws take effect from the date of their enactment and ignorance of the law is no excuse; thus, the contention of the petitioners that they were surprised by an amendment pleading an Act approved after the suit was instituted is without merit, and the trial judge did not abuse the judge's discretion in refusing to continue the case to the next term. Crawford v. Irwin, 211 Ga. 241 , 85 S.E.2d 8 (1954).

Ignorance of ordinance limiting authority of city attorneys. - A public sector attorney's authority, like that of any other public officer, is defined and prescribed by law, including municipal ordinances; thus, a city and police officers who had entered a settlement agreement executed by city attorneys on their behalf were not estopped from challenging the agreement on the basis that a city ordinance restricted the apparent authority of the attorneys to execute the agreement, even though the ordinance was not specifically communicated to the opposing party. City of Atlanta v. Black, 265 Ga. 425 , 457 S.E.2d 551 (1995).

Cited in Fulenwider v. Forrester, 64 Ga. App. 756 , 14 S.E.2d 173 (1941); Cole v. Holland, 219 Ga. 227 , 132 S.E.2d 657 (1963); Dyson v. Dixon, 219 Ga. 427 , 134 S.E.2d 1 (1963); McRae v. State, 116 Ga. App. 407 , 157 S.E.2d 646 (1967); A.M. Kidder & Co. v. Clement A. Evans & Co., 117 Ga. App. 346 , 160 S.E.2d 869 (1968); Jones v. Caldwell, 230 Ga. 775 , 199 S.E.2d 248 (1973); Shook & Fletcher Insulation Co. v. Central Rigging & Contracting Corp., 684 F.2d 1383 (11th Cir. 1982); Jenga v. State, 166 Ga. App. 36 , 303 S.E.2d 170 (1983); North Fulton Community Hosp. v. State Health Planning & Dev. Agency, 168 Ga. App. 801 , 310 S.E.2d 764 (1983); Hale v. State, 188 Ga. App. 524 , 373 S.E.2d 250 (1988); Davenport v. Nance, 194 Ga. App. 313 , 390 S.E.2d 281 (1990); Harris v. Boyd, 193 Ga. App. 467 , 388 S.E.2d 60 (1989); Georgia Subsequent Injury Trust Fund v. ITT-Rayonier, Inc., 198 Ga. App. 467 , 402 S.E.2d 54 (1991); Nix v. Long Mtn. Resources, Inc., 262 Ga. 506 , 422 S.E.2d 195 (1992); Windermere v. Bettes, 211 Ga. App. 177 , 438 S.E.2d 406 (1993); Black v. City of Atlanta, 61 F.3d 27 (11th Cir. 1995); Grisson v. State, 237 Ga. App. 559 , 515 S.E.2d 857 (1999); Henry v. State, 295 Ga. App. 758 , 673 S.E.2d 120 (2009); Ga. State Licensing Bd. for Residential & Gen. Contrs. v. Allen, 286 Ga. 811 , 692 S.E.2d 343 (2010); Mecca Constr., Inc. v. Maestro Invs., LLC, 320 Ga. App. 34 , 739 S.E.2d 51 (2013).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur. 2d. - 21 Am. Jur. 2d, Criminal Law, § 33 et seq. 27A Am. Jur. 2d, Equity, §§ 92, 93. 29 Am. Jur. 2d, Evidence, § 239.

C.J.S. - 22 C.J.S., Criminal Law, §§ 94, 95. 82 C.J.S., Statutes, § 393 et seq.

ALR. - Ignorance of legal right to avoid contract or conveyance made during infancy as affecting ratification thereof upon attaining majority, 5 A.L.R. 137 .

Unconstitutionality of later statute as affecting provision purporting specifically to repeal earlier statute, 102 A.L.R. 802 .

Misrepresentation as to tax law as within rule that party to contract or other instrument may not rely upon misrepresentations as to matters of law, 153 A.L.R. 538 .

What law, in point of time, governs as to inheritance from or through adoptive parent, 18 A.L.R.2d 960.

Retrospective effect of statute prescribing grounds of divorce, 23 A.L.R.3d 626.

1-3-7. Abrogation of laws by agreement; waiver or renunciation of benefits established by law.

Laws made for the preservation of public order or good morals may not be dispensed with or abrogated by any agreement. However, a person may waive or renounce what the law has established in his favor when he does not thereby injure others or affect the public interest.

(Orig. Code 1863, § 11; Code 1868, § 10; Code 1873, § 10; Code 1882, § 10; Civil Code 1895, § 10; Penal Code 1895, § 5; Civil Code 1910, § 10; Penal Code 1910, § 5; Code 1933, § 102-106.)

Law reviews. - For note, "The Scope and Meaning of Waiver in Section 2-209 of the Uniform Commercial Code," see 5 Ga. L. Rev. 783 (1971). For comment on Ware v. State, 128 Ga. App. 407 , 196 S.E.2d 896 (1973), discussing the right of an accused to retract guilty plea prior to judgment, see 10 Ga. St. B.J. 469 (1974). For comment, "Eleventh Circuit Survey: January 1, 2013 - December 31, 2013: Comment: Confirming the Enforceability of the Guaranty Agreement After Non-Judicial Foreclosure in Georgia," see 65 Mercer L. Rev. 1167 (2014).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

ANALYSIS

General Consideration

Section is applicable to all private relations in which men may place themselves towards each other. Western & A.R.R. v. Bishop, 50 Ga. 465 (1873).

One who voluntarily accepts an Act and the benefits it provides cannot question its constitutionality. Senters v. Wright & Lopez, Inc., 220 Ga. 611 , 140 S.E.2d 904 (1965).

Principle of estoppel runs throughout law. - As between individuals, where no question of the general welfare of society or public policy is involved, the principle of estoppel runs throughout the law. Although an Act is unconstitutional and void, it will operate as an estoppel upon the party applying for it, and procuring its passage and accepting its benefits. Christopher v. Christopher, 198 Ga. 361 , 31 S.E.2d 818 (1944).

Cited in Stephenson v. Kellett, 46 Ga. App. 27 , 166 S.E. 457 (1932); Gettis v. Gormley, 49 Ga. App. 339 , 175 S.E. 393 (1934); Myers v. Atlantic Greyhound Lines, 52 Ga. App. 698 , 184 S.E. 414 (1936); Freeney v. Pape, 185 Ga. 1 , 194 S.E. 515 (1937); Roberts v. State, 189 Ga. 36 , 5 S.E.2d 340 (1939); Dunn v. Meyer, 193 Ga. 91 , 17 S.E.2d 275 (1941); Buttersworth v. State, 200 Ga. 13 , 36 S.E.2d 301 (1945); Jordan v. State, 75 Ga. App. 815 , 44 S.E.2d 821 (1947); Tatum v. Tatum, 203 Ga. 406 , 46 S.E.2d 915 (1948); Campbell v. Allen, 208 Ga. 274 , 66 S.E.2d 226 (1951); Webb v. Henlery, 209 Ga. 447 , 74 S.E.2d 7 (1953); Johnson v. Plunkett, 215 Ga. 353 , 110 S.E.2d 745 (1959); Bankers Fid. Life Ins. Co. v. Morgan, 104 Ga. App. 894 , 123 S.E.2d 433 (1961); Northeast Factor & Disct. Co. v. Mortgage Invs., Inc., 107 Ga. App. 705 , 131 S.E.2d 221 (1963); Swint v. Smith, 219 Ga. 532 , 134 S.E.2d 595 (1964); Timmons v. State, 223 Ga. 450 , 156 S.E.2d 68 (1967); Arkwright v. State, 223 Ga. 768 , 158 S.E.2d 370 (1967); Grizzard v. Grizzard, 224 Ga. 42 , 159 S.E.2d 400 (1968); Brannan v. Kilpatrick, 225 Ga. 3 , 165 S.E.2d 721 (1969); Steffner v. Steffner, 228 Ga. 189 , 184 S.E.2d 575 (1971); Livsey v. Livsey, 229 Ga. 368 , 191 S.E.2d 859 (1972); Grimes v. Community Loan & Inv. Corp., 130 Ga. App. 8 , 202 S.E.2d 265 (1973); Garcia v. Garcia, 232 Ga. 869 , 209 S.E.2d 201 (1974); Boyd v. State, 133 Ga. App. 431 , 211 S.E.2d 387 (1974); United States Fire Ins. Co. v. Day, 136 Ga. App. 359 , 221 S.E.2d 467 (1975); Phillips v. Meadow Garden Hosp., 139 Ga. App. 541 , 228 S.E.2d 714 (1976); Daniel v. Daniel, 250 Ga. 849 , 301 S.E.2d 643 (1983); Tedesco v. CDC Fed. Credit Union, 167 Ga. App. 337 , 306 S.E.2d 397 (1983); Lovelace v. Figure Salon, Inc., 179 Ga. App. 51 , 345 S.E.2d 139 (1986); Panfel v. Boyd, 187 Ga. App. 639 , 371 S.E.2d 222 (1988); State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Ainsworth, 198 Ga. App. 740 , 402 S.E.2d 759 (1991); Morris v. Cowart, 201 Ga. App. 288 , 411 S.E.2d 81 (1991).

Abrogation of Laws
1. In General

Where the public has an interest in a legal requirement, it may not be waived by the parties. Hilt v. Young, 116 Ga. 708 , 43 S.E. 76 (1902).

While a person may generally waive or renounce what the law has established in the person's favor, the person cannot do so when the waiver affects the public interest. Georgia Fertilizer Co. v. Walker, 171 Ga. 734 , 156 S.E. 820 (1931).

Public policy cannot be circumvented by the action of individuals. Christopher v. Christopher, 198 Ga. 361 , 31 S.E.2d 818 (1944).

Courts' power to declare contract void exercised only in cases free from doubt. - The power of the courts to declare a contract void for being in contravention of a sound public policy is a very delicate and undefined power, and, like the power to declare a statute unconstitutional, should be exercised only in cases free from doubt. Porubiansky v. Emory Univ., 156 Ga. App. 602 , 275 S.E.2d 163 (1980).

Contract not contrary to public policy unless declared so, or contrary to morals and law. - A contract cannot be said to be contrary to public policy unless the General Assembly has declared it to be so, or unless the consideration of the contract is contrary to good morals and contrary to law, or unless the contract is entered into for the purpose of effecting an illegal or immoral agreement or doing something which is in violation of law. Porubiansky v. Emory Univ., 156 Ga. App. 602 , 275 S.E.2d 163 (1980), aff'd, 248 Ga. 391 , 282 S.E.2d 903 (1981).

Provisions of former Code 1933, § 20-504 (see now O.C.G.A. § 13-8-2 ) should not be enlarged without convincing and conclusive reasons. Porubiansky v. Emory Univ., 156 Ga. App. 602 , 275 S.E.2d 163 (1980), aff'd, 248 Ga. 391 , 282 S.E.2d 903 (1981).

Only authentic and admissible evidence of state's public policy is constitution, laws, and judicial decisions. Porubiansky v. Emory Univ., 156 Ga. App. 602 , 275 S.E.2d 163 (1980), aff'd, 248 Ga. 391 , 282 S.E.2d 903 (1981).

2. Specific Illustrations

Pleadings cannot be waived by consent of the parties. This rule is applicable to courts of equity. Central Bank v. Johnson & Smith, 56 Ga. 225 (1876).

Law cannot be waived so as to make an experimental case. Habersham v. Wetter, 59 Ga. 11 (1877).

Waiver by relatives of notice of proceeding to inquire into sanity of party is ineffectual. Yeoman v. Williams, 117 Ga. 800 , 45 S.E. 73 (1903).

Contract by which debtor attempts to waive garnishment exemption void. - A contract, either specific or general, by which a debtor attempts to waive the debtor's exemption and to make the debtor's wages earned as a laborer subject to garnishment is void and not enforceable. Traders Inv. Co. v. Macon Ry. & Light Co., 3 Ga. App. 125 , 59 S.E. 454 (1907). See also Green v. Watson, 75 Ga. 471 , 58 Am. R. 479 (1185).

Venue cannot be waived in divorce suit. - In a suit for divorce, jurisdiction of the court cannot be waived so as to permit a suit for divorce to be brought in a county other than that of the residence of the defendant. Watts v. Watts, 130 Ga. 683 , 61 S.E. 593 (1908); Odum v. Odum, 132 Ga. 437 , 64 S.E. 470 (1909); Haygood v. Haygood, 190 Ga. 445 , 9 S.E.2d 834 (1940).

Neither can notice required as condition precedent to recovery of attorney's fees. - Where a promissory note contains an obligation to pay attorney's fees, the statutory notice which the plaintiff is required to give to the defendant as a condition precedent to the defendant's right to recover these fees cannot be waived in the note, and the attempt to waive it therein is unenforceable and of no effect. Miller v. Roberts, 9 Ga. App. 511 , 71 S.E. 927 (1911).

One responsible for acts of criminal negligence, or, where gratuitous bailment created, gross negligence. - One may not be released by agreement or waiver from responsibility for acts of criminal negligence, nor, where the status of the parties creates a bailment as to the injured property, from acts or omissions caused by gross negligence, under the measure of liability controlling a gratuitous bailee. King v. Smith, 47 Ga. App. 360 , 170 S.E. 546 (1933).

Public officer cannot take less than full statutory salary. - Since an agreement by a public officer to accept less than the fees or salary allowed the officer by law is contrary to public policy and void, a public officer cannot bind oneself to take less than the statute provides for the officer's salary, by silently accepting less than the full amount provided by law. MacNeill v. Steele, 186 Ga. 792 , 199 S.E. 99 (1938).

Ante litem notice to city. - The statutory requirements for ante litem notice to the governing authority of the city generally may not be waived by the city or by an individual, even if that individual is the official directly responsible for the injury or for claims adjustment. City of LaGrange v. USAA Ins. Co., 211 Ga. App. 19 , 438 S.E.2d 137 (1993).

Section does not authorize murder defendant to demand that case be tried by judge. Palmer v. State, 195 Ga. 661 , 25 S.E.2d 295 (1943).

Contempts affecting public policy cannot be extinguished by settlement. - Where contempts were matters affecting the public interest, being thus quasi-criminal in nature, they could not be extinguished or rendered moot by any settlement between the parties. Alred v. Celanese Corp. of Am., 205 Ga. 371 , 54 S.E.2d 240 (1949), cert. denied, 338 U.S. 937, 70 S. Ct. 346 , 94 L. Ed. 578 (1950).

Section inapplicable to attempt to release party from liability for gas safety regulation violations. - The exception in this section, that "a person may waive or renounce what the law has established in his favor, when he does not thereby injure others or affect the public interest," has no application where the contract attempts to release a party from liability for acts violating liquefied gas safety regulations. Bishop v. Act-O-Lane Gas Serv. Co., 91 Ga. App. 154 , 85 S.E.2d 169 (1954).

Exculpation from liability for negligence generally. - One may exculpate oneself from liability for one's own simple negligence, but not for gross negligence. Wade v. Watson, 527 F. Supp. 1049 (N.D. Ga. 1981), aff'd, 731 F.2d 890 (11th Cir. 1984).

The general rule in Georgia is that one may by careful language exculpate oneself even from liability for one's own negligence, but not from one's own gross negligence or intentional act. Wade v. Watson, 527 F. Supp. 1049 (N.D. Ga. 1981), aff'd, 731 F.2d 890 (11th Cir. 1984).

Informed consent document signed by a decedent before using a fitness facility's pool was valid and enforceable because: (1) the document was clear and unambiguous; (2) the document was not void as against public policy; and (3) the document contained a covenant not to sue, a disclaimer of liability, and an assumption of risk clause wherein the decedent agreed to hold the facility and its employee harmless from any lawsuits for decedent's death, accidental or otherwise, that arose from any exercise program, whether formal or self-directed. Flood v. Young Woman's Christian Ass'n of Brunswick, Ga., Inc., 398 F.3d 1261 (11th Cir. 2005).

Exculpatory clauses are valid and binding, and are not void as against public policy when a business relieves itself from its own negligence. My Fair Lady of Ga., Inc. v. Harris, 185 Ga. App. 459 , 364 S.E.2d 580 (1987), cert. denied, 185 Ga. App. 910 , 364 S.E.2d 580 (1988); Hembree v. Johnson, 224 Ga. App. 680 , 482 S.E.2d 407 (1997).

Exculpatory provision in contract does not relieve one from liability for willful or wanton conduct. Hawes v. Central of Ga. Ry., 117 Ga. App. 771 , 162 S.E.2d 14 (1968).

Witness offered is permitted to testify, unless objection or exception distinctly raises question of competency. Sumter County v. Pritchett, 125 Ga. App. 222 , 186 S.E.2d 798 (1971).

Defendant's waiver not permitted to injure insurer's right to defend action in own name. - Although a named, served defendant may waive his right to defend against an action, the defendant's waiver and default cannot be permitted to injure the statutory right of the defendant's insurer to defend the action in its own name, which would be the result if the insurer were held to be bound by the defendant's admissions. Glover v. Davenport, 133 Ga. App. 146 , 210 S.E.2d 370 (1974).

Although the named, served uninsured motorist defendant could and did waive the defendant's right to defend against the action, the defendant's waiver and default cannot be permitted to injure the statutory right of the defendant's insurer to defend the action in its own name, which would be the result if the insurer were held to be bound by the defendant's admissions. Georgia Mut. Ins. Co. v. Willis, 140 Ga. App. 225 , 230 S.E.2d 363 (1976).

Parent not authorized to waive child support. - The right to child support belongs to the child, not the mother, and after the award has become part of the court's judgment she has no authority to waive it. Johnson v. Johnson, 233 Ga. 664 , 212 S.E.2d 835 (1975).

A mother has no right to barter away child support in return for a relinquishment of visitation privileges. Similarly, a father has no right to make a similar arrangement with a third party. Culpepper v. Brewer, 242 Ga. 210 , 248 S.E.2d 619 (1978).

Plaintiff's acquiescence in defendant's summary judgment motion not permitted to prevail over defendant insurer. - Even though the plaintiff acquiesced in the defendant's motion for summary judgment, and a person may waive or renounce what the law has established in one's favor when one does not thereby injure others or affect the public interest, the acquiescence injured the defendant insurer and the plaintiff's nonfeasance will not be permitted to prevail - just as a defendant's voluntary default will not be permitted to prejudice the defendant insurer. J.C. Penny Cas. Ins. Co. v. Williams, 149 Ga. App. 258 , 253 S.E.2d 878 (1979).

Contract limiting innkeeper's statutory liability unenforceable. - A special contract between an innkeeper and a guest purporting to limit the innkeeper's liability to an amount less than that authorized by former Code 1933, § 52-111 (see now O.C.G.A. § 43-21-12 ) was unenforceable as contrary to public interest and policy. Porubiansky v. Emory Univ., 156 Ga. App. 602 , 275 S.E.2d 163 (1980), aff'd, 248 Ga. 391 , 282 S.E.2d 903 (1981).

Exculpatory provision nullifying landlord's warranty concerning latent defects unenforceable. - A landlord's implied warranty concerning latent defects existing at the inception of the lease was sufficiently analogous to a contract for maintenance or repair, so that an exculpatory provision purporting to nullify the effect of the implied warranty was void and unenforceable. The landlord's warranty exists by operation of law in the interest of public safety, and is provided for by former Code 1933, § 61-111 (see now O.C.G.A. § 44-7-13 ). Porubiansky v. Emory Univ., 156 Ga. App. 602 , 275 S.E.2d 163 (1980), aff'd, 248 Ga. 391 , 282 S.E.2d 903 (1981).

Exculpatory clause signed as condition of receiving dental treatment invalid. - An exculpatory clause in the consent form signed by a patient as a condition of receiving treatment at a dental school clinic is invalid as contrary to public policy. Porubiansky v. Emory Univ., 156 Ga. App. 602 , 275 S.E.2d 163 (1980), aff'd, 248 Ga. 391 , 282 S.E.2d 903 (1981).

Simulated aircraft aerial combat. - Where a parent brought suit to recover the benefits under a policy of life insurance insuring the life of the parent's adult son, the trial court erred in only partially denying the insurer's motion for summary judgment by holding that it had waived the statutory requirement prohibiting the issuance of a valid life insurance policy without the written consent of the insured; under circumstances not qualifying for an exception pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 33-24-6(a)(1)-(4), the policy was void ab initio, and unenforceable by the courts; written consent of the insured may not be waived. Time Ins. Co. v. Lamar, 195 Ga. App. 452 , 393 S.E.2d 734 (1990).

Although exculpatory clauses signed by a pilot and a safety pilot who flew an aircraft company's plane and engaged in simulated aerial combat were not against public policy under O.C.G.A. § 1-3-7 , the clauses were not enforceable if the company was found to have been grossly negligent or to have engaged in willful misconduct, which was an issue to be resolved by the jury; additionally, a jury issue remained as to whether one of the pilots was an independent contractor for purposes of the company's liability under O.C.G.A. § 51-2-5(5) , and, accordingly, a grant of summary judgment pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 9-11-56 to the company was error. McFann v. Sky Warriors, Inc., 268 Ga. App. 750 , 603 S.E.2d 7 (2004).

Waiver of Benefits
1. In General

"Waiver" defined. - "Waiver" is a voluntary relinquishment of some known right, benefit or advantage, which, except for the waiver, the party otherwise would have enjoyed. City of Albany v. Mitchell, 81 Ga. App. 408 , 59 S.E.2d 37 (1950).

Person may waive statutory benefit where others or public policy not involved. - A person may lawfully waive the benefit of a statutory provision where the rights of third parties are not involved, unless the waiver violates public policy. Southern Ry. v. Turner, 75 Ga. App. 219 , 42 S.E.2d 790 (1947).

Contracting parties may waive or renounce what the law has established in their favor, provided the waiver or renunciation does not thereby injure others or affect the public interest. Young v. John Deere Plow Co., 102 Ga. App. 132 , 115 S.E.2d 770 (1960).

A party may waive that which the law provides for one's benefit unless to permit one to do so would injure others or be contrary to public policy. Pfeffer v. Arrendale, 114 Ga. App. 684 , 152 S.E.2d 651 (1966).

It is clearly established state law that one may waive a constitutional right. Senters v. Wright & Lopez, Inc., 220 Ga. 611 , 140 S.E.2d 904 (1965).

Subrogation may be expressly waived by an insurer pursuant to agreement. - Homeowners retained the right to sue for damage done to their property, despite payment from their insurer, because language in proof of loss forms granted the insurer subrogation to the homeowners' rights, title, and interest in the property that was damaged, but not to the claim, and in any event the insurer expressly waived its right to subrogation in the release and settlement agreement executed contemporaneously with the issuance of the settlement payment. Rabun & Assocs. Constr., Inc. v. Berry, 276 Ga. App. 485 , 623 S.E.2d 691 (2005).

There is an effective waiver only when it is wholly voluntary and comes from the defendant without any solicitation or coercion whatsoever from either the state or the court. Farmer v. State, 128 Ga. App. 416 , 196 S.E.2d 893 (1973).

Necessary elements. - Waiver need not be supported by consideration, is unilateral in character, must be made with knowledge and intent, and can be established by a certain course of conduct. Aaron Rents, Inc. v. Corr, 133 Ga. App. 296 , 211 S.E.2d 156 (1974).

Waiver is a matter of intent. - The evidence must so clearly indicate an intent to relinquish a known right as to exclude any other reasonable explanation. Allstate Fin. Corp. v. Dundee Mills, Inc., 800 F.2d 1073 (11th Cir. 1986).

Implied waiver is not more efficacious, nor more highly regarded, than express waiver in writing. Pittman v. Elder, 76 Ga. 371 (1886).

Question of whether one has waived right upon which one relies is matter of fact to be determined by a jury or the trier of the facts upon all the evidence. City of Albany v. Mitchell, 81 Ga. App. 408 , 59 S.E.2d 37 (1950).

Children's support rights nonwaivable. - Children, legitimate or illegitimate, are not property, and absent a clear legislative declaration otherwise their support rights may not be bartered away by their parents. Worthington v. Worthington, 250 Ga. 730 , 301 S.E.2d 44 (1983).

2. Waivable Rights

Right to have a receipt of an insurance company under seal may be waived. American Life Ins. Co. v. Green, 57 Ga. 469 (1876).

Although time is of the essence of the contract, it may be waived. Moody v. Griffin, 60 Ga. 459 (1878). ; see also Moxley v. Kinloch, 80 Ga. 46 , 7 S.E. 123 (1887).

Homestead waiver is good in a mortgage by the husband as against the wife. Burns v. State, 61 Ga. 192 (1878). ; see also dissenting opinion Allen v. Frost, 59 Ga. 558 (1877); Mathis v. Western Union Tel. Co., 94 Ga. 338 , 21 S.E. 564 , 21 S.E. 1039 , 47 Am. St. R. 167 (1894), dissenting opinion.

Defendant has right to waive jury trial in misdemeanor case. - Whatever may be the decisions in other states as to the right to waive trial by jury in cases of misdemeanor, the Georgia Supreme Court does not think there can be any doubt that the defendant had this right under our law. Logan v. State, 86 Ga. 266 , 12 S.E. 406 (1890).

Defendant may waive every minor right and privilege. - As the prisoner may waive even a trial itself, and be capitally punished upon the defendant's own confession of guilt, the defendant may waive every minor right or privilege. The greater includes the less, or the whole the parts. Logan v. State, 86 Ga. 266 , 12 S.E. 406 (1890); Vaughn v. State, 88 Ga. 731 , 16 S.E. 64 (1892).

Person instituting action may settle with defendant where fine or penalty goes to person alone. - The rule seems to be that where the public, or a portion thereof, are interested in a fine or penalty, the person or informer who brings the action cannot settle or compound with the defendant so as to deprive the public of its interest therein. But where the penalty or fine goes alone to the informer or person who institutes the action therefor, one may settle or compound with the defendant, or withdraw one's suit, or waive one's right to recover the penalty or fine. Mathis v. Western Union Tel. Co., 94 Ga. 338 , 21 S.E. 564 , 21 S.E. 1039 , 47 Am. St. R. 167 (1894).

Parties to nonstatutory arbitration agreement may waive that arbitrator be sworn. - The parties to an agreement to submit their differences to nonstatutory arbitration may expressly waive that the arbitrator be sworn, even if, under the terms of the submission, the arbitrator is required to be sworn. Southern Live Stock Ins. Co. v. Benjamin, 113 Ga. 1088 , 39 S.E. 489 (1901).

Materialman not required to obtain personal judgment against owner in order to maintain foreclosure proceedings. - Where materials are sold to an owner either directly or through another as one's agent, the materialman may, upon proper pleadings and evidence, obtain a personal judgment against the owner for the price or value of the materials, but the materialman is not obliged to seek or obtain such a judgment in order to maintain foreclosure proceedings. Robinson v. Reese, 175 Ga. 574 , 165 S.E. 744 (1932).

Nonliability agreement not void, except where statutorily prohibited or public duty owed. - Except in cases prohibited by statute, or where a public duty is owed, as by a common carrier of goods or passengers, a party may by a valid contract relieve oneself from liability to another party for particular injuries or damages and for ordinary negligence, and such an agreement is not void as against public policy. King v. Smith, 47 Ga. App. 360 , 170 S.E. 546 (1933).

Except in cases prohibited by statute and cases where a public duty is owed, the general rule is that a party may exempt oneself by contract from liability to the other party for injuries caused by negligence; and the agreement is not void for contravening public policy. Hawes v. Central of Ga. Ry., 117 Ga. App. 771 , 162 S.E.2d 14 (1968).

A party may exempt oneself by contract from liability to another party for injuries caused by negligence, and the agreement is not void for contravening public policy. Porubiansky v. Emory Univ., 156 Ga. App. 602 , 275 S.E.2d 163 (1980), aff'd, 248 Ga. 391 , 282 S.E.2d 903 (1981).

Warranty of suitability in bailment for hire. - A bailee may renounce the warranty of suitability established in the bailee's favor by O.C.G.A. § 44-12-63 by use of an exculpatory clause in the contract for bailment for hire. Hall v. Gardens Servs., Inc., 174 Ga. App. 856 , 332 S.E.2d 3 (1985).

Where public policy does not absolutely bar or disqualify inadmissible testimony, inadmissibility may be waived Albany Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Henderson, 198 Ga. 116 , 31 S.E.2d 20 (1944).

Required written notice to damage recovery for livestock loss or injury waivable. - A contract requiring notice in writing as a condition precedent to the recovery of damages for loss or injury to a shipment of livestock may be waived by the conduct of the carrier. Southern Ry. v. Turner, 75 Ga. App. 219 , 42 S.E.2d 790 (1947).

Party can waive hearing. - Although a party is entitled to an opportunity for a hearing, there is no requirement that there must be a hearing. The party can waive the hearing. Scocca v. Wilt, 243 Ga. 2 , 252 S.E.2d 401 (1979).

Consequential damages. - To the extent that consequential damages are recoverable in breach of contract actions, a clause excluding such damages is valid and binding unless prohibited by statute or public policy. Mark Singleton Buick, Inc. v. Taylor, 194 Ga. App. 630 , 391 S.E.2d 435 (1990).

Waiver of right to jury trial in probate proceeding. - Trial court had subject matter jurisdiction to review the probate court's decision under Ga. Const. 1983, Art. VI, Sec. IV, Para. I and O.C.G.A. § 15-6-8(4)(E) to deny probate of the decedent's 1988 will and the parties' waiver of the statutory right to a jury trial did not deprive the trial court of subject matter jurisdiction to deny probate of the will. Mosley v. Lancaster, 296 Ga. 862 , 770 S.E.2d 873 (2015).

Jury trial. - Before a defendant could effectively waive the right to a jury trial and demand a bench trial, the state's consent had to be obtained, in addition to the trial court's agreement to conduct a bench trial pursuant to the defendant's demand. Zigan v. State, 281 Ga. 415 , 638 S.E.2d 322 (2006).

3. Actions Amounting to Waiver

Obtaining Sunday hearing waives legal hearing. - To insist on a hearing upon Sunday, and to obtain it and then give bail, is to waive a legal hearing. Weldon v. Colquitt, 62 Ga. 449 , 35 Am. R. 128 (1879).

Failure to object waives personal jurisdiction. - Where the justice of a district in which the defendant resided was disqualified, and suit was brought without objection in another district, the presiding justice of which had jurisdiction of the subject matter, the defendant thereby waived objection to the jurisdiction of the defendant's person. Dozier v. Allen, 65 Ga. 254 (1880).

Failure to object to a motion for a new trial amounts to a waiver. Moore v. Rosser, 76 Ga. 329 (1886).

Any point of practice which, if sound, would be fatal to a motion for a new trial should be presented to the trial court by a motion to dismiss the application for a new trial, and if not so presented will be considered as having been waived. Walker v. Neil, 117 Ga. 733 , 45 S.E. 387 (1903); Hopkins v. Jackson, 147 Ga. 821 , 95 S.E. 675 (1918); Town of Fairburn v. Brantley, 161 Ga. 199 , 130 S.E. 67 (1925).

Where evidence brief is not filed by day set, subsequent acts of parties may waive. Moxley v. Kinloch, 80 Ga. 46 , 7 S.E. 123 (1887). ; see also Hilt v. Young, 116 Ga. 708 , 43 S.E. 76 (1902).

Tax return irregularities are waivable by identifying property on which fieri facias will be levied. National Bank v. Danforth, 80 Ga. 55 , 7 S.E. 546 (1887).

Refusal of telegraph company to pay damages on oral demand waives formal demand in writing. Hill v. Western Union Tel. Co., 85 Ga. 425 , 11 S.E. 874 , 21 Am. St. R. 166 (1890).

Agent of the company is a competent party to waive. Hill v. Western Union Tel. Co., 85 Ga. 425 , 11 S.E. 874 , 21 Am. St. R. 166 (1890).

Arraignment and plea rights are waived when defendant goes to trial before jury on merits, and fails, until after the verdict, to bring to the attention of the court that the defendant has not been formally called upon to enter a plea to the indictment. Waller v. State, 2 Ga. App. 636 , 58 S.E. 1106 (1907); Harris v. State, 11 Ga. App. 137 , 74 S.E. 895 (1912); Perry v. State, 19 Ga. App. 619 , 91 S.E. 939 (1917); Brown v. State, 19 Ga. App. 619 , 91 S.E. 939 (1917); Caswell v. State, 27 Ga. App. 76 , 107 S.E. 560 , cert. denied, 27 Ga. App. 835 (1921).

Omission to take an exception to a ruling amounts to a waiver. Hunt v. Travelers Ins. Co., 136 Ga. 766 , 72 S.E. 32 (1911).

Person may waive service of the original suit by appearing and pleading to the merits. Town of Fairburn v. Brantley, 161 Ga. 199 , 130 S.E. 67 (1925).

Stipulation in deed securing debt that grantees may sell property upon default waives redemption right. - A stipulation in a deed to secure debt, that upon a default in the payment of the indebtedness thereby secured the grantees may enter upon the premises and collect the rents and profits thereof, and may sell the property at auction to the highest bidder for cash, first giving four weeks notice of the time, terms, and place of the sale by advertisement, constitutes a waiver by the borrower, the grantor in the deed, of the right of redemption given to mortgagors by former Code 1933, § 67-115 (see now O.C.G.A. § 44-14-42.1 ). Livingston v. Hirsch, 172 Ga. 854 , 159 S.E. 253 (1931) (see § 11-9-506 ).

If carrier's agent acts upon oral notice of damaged shipment, required written notice waived. - Where a contract of shipment requires the owner or shipper to give notice in writing of any damage to the shipment before it is unloaded, such stipulation may be waived. If the carrier's agent, without objection to the form of the notice, receives and acts upon an oral notice, a waiver of the requirement as to its being in writing results. Southern Ry. v. Turner, 75 Ga. App. 219 , 42 S.E.2d 790 (1947).

Party signing contract stipulating seller makes no warranty waives implied warranty. - Where a contract sued on expressly stipulates that the seller makes no warranty, a party who signs the contract will be deemed to have waived the benefits of the statutory law respecting implied warranties in sales contracts. Seigler v. Barrow, 83 Ga. App. 406 , 63 S.E.2d 708 (1951).

Debtor under contract may waive defenses to action brought by contract's assignee. - A debtor under a conditional sale contract, by expressly agreeing not to set up as a defense to an action on the contract by an assignee thereof any claim the assignee may have had against the assignor, waived the assignee's right to plead failure of consideration in an action on the contract by the assignee. Jones v. Universal C.I.T. Credit Corp., 88 Ga. App. 24 , 75 S.E.2d 822 (1953); Young v. John Deere Plow Co., 102 Ga. App. 132 , 115 S.E.2d 770 (1960).

Demurrer or special pleas not made preliminary to trial deemed waived. - Under the law of this state, a prisoner, upon being arraigned, may demur to the indictment, plead to the jurisdiction of the court, or file a plea in abatement, or in bar, but if such pleas are not made preliminary to the trial, they are held to be waived in contemplation of law. Jones v. Mills, 216 Ga. 616 , 118 S.E.2d 484 (1961).

Rights of accused may be waived voluntarily, or by counsel's failure to act. - Generally, all rights can be waived. This may be done by one accused of a criminal offense where this is done voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently. It may be done by counsel for the accused by counsel's failure to act timely or by counsel's not acting at all. Mingo v. State, 133 Ga. App. 385 , 210 S.E.2d 835 (1974).

Stipulating waiver of prior jeopardy. - Although the trial court ruled on the motion to suppress after the jury had been sworn and excused, where the record showed that, in the trial court, the appellee stipulated in writing that a jury had never been placed upon the appellee and, consequently, that he had not been placed in jeopardy, the result of such stipulation is that the motion to suppress had, in effect, been ruled upon prior to impanelling of the jury, and the case was properly before the appellate court. State v. Chumley, 164 Ga. App. 828 , 299 S.E.2d 564 (1982).

Contracting to abide by restrictive covenants. - Because a landowner was at liberty to waive a constitutional as well as a legal right, the superior court did not abuse its discretion in restraining the landowner's continuing violation of restrictive covenants by hanging an unapproved non-commercial sign from the landowner's residence after the landowner had validly contracted to abide by the covenants which were mutually applicable to all lot owners. Bryan v. MBC Partners, L.P., 246 Ga. App. 549 , 541 S.E.2d 124 (2000).

4. Actions Not Amounting to Waiver

Filing of motion for new trial is not waived by consent to continuance of hearing. Hilt v. Young, 116 Ga. 708 , 43 S.E. 76 (1902).

The creditor's release of the principal debtor without the consent of the surety does not discharge the surety if the creditor, in the instrument of release, reserved its rights against the surety. However, the debtor's waiver of its claims in consideration of that release may not defeat the surety's right to assert those claims to reduce its liability to the creditor. Hardaway Co. v. Amwest Sur. Ins. Co., 263 Ga. 697 , 436 S.E.2d 642 (1993).

5. Effect of Waiver

Defendant acknowledging service and waiving filing cannot object that writ not filed. - A defendant when sued may acknowledge service, and waive copy, process, and filing before the session of the court, and the defendant will not afterwards as against the plaintiff be heard to object that the writ was not filed before the court. Steadman v. Simmons, 39 Ga. 591 (1869).

Contract exemption releases landlord from liability for all acts, except those willful and wanton. - A valid exemption in a lease contract effectively released the landlord from all liability for injury to the tenant's goods on account of ordinary negligence, including all acts and omissions as charged in the petition, except those which constituted willfulness and wantonness. To make an act willful and wanton, specific facts must be alleged and proven. King v. Smith, 47 Ga. App. 360 , 170 S.E. 546 (1933).

Acknowledgment that checks in full settlement of salary due estops recovery of deductions made. - The plaintiff's written acknowledgment that the plaintiff's pay checks were in full settlement of the salary due the plaintiff, and that any deductions from the full amount due were made in accordance with the payee's written request, not having been made under duress, constituted a waiver which did not adversely affect the public interest or violate public policy, and estopped the plaintiff from recovering the deductions so made. Barfield v. City of Atlanta, 53 Ga. App. 861 , 187 S.E. 407 (1936).

Where accused assents to juror excuse, no error committed, though verdict rendered by 11 jurors. - Where the evidence in a criminal trial, though partly circumstantial, was sufficient to authorize a finding that at the time one of the original 12 jurors was excused by the court, and in the presence of the court, the accused was consulted by his counsel, and expressly assented, as the accused had the right to do, no error was committed, even though the verdict was rendered by 11 jurors. Coates v. Lawrence, 193 Ga. 379 , 18 S.E.2d 685 (1942).

Too late to attack defective indictment in habeas corpus proceedings if defendant pled guilty. - If the defendant pleads guilty to a defective indictment in which the defendant has incriminated oneself, and the defendant's spouse has testified, it is too late afterwards, in proceedings instituted to secure the release of the defendant by a writ of habeas corpus, to attack the indictment upon that ground. Bradford v. Mills, 208 Ga. 198 , 66 S.E.2d 58 (1951).

One going to trial without objection cannot question the constitutionality of the Act creating court which tried him. Senters v. Wright & Lopez, Inc., 220 Ga. 611 , 140 S.E.2d 904 (1965).

By pleading to merits of case defendant waives right to object to jurisdiction of court to render a judgment in personam against the defendant and converts an attachment proceeding into an ordinary common-law action. Parker v. Mercer, 111 Ga. App. 108 , 140 S.E.2d 915 (1965).

When no objection to evidence when offered, not considered on appeal. - The failure to object at the time evidence is offered is a waiver of the objection and this ground of the appeal could not be considered. Sumter County v. Pritchett, 125 Ga. App. 222 , 186 S.E.2d 798 (1971).

Once incidental right or contractual benefit has been waived or relinquished it cannot be reclaimed. Aaron Rents, Inc. v. Corr, 133 Ga. App. 296 , 211 S.E.2d 156 (1974).

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Person may not waive coverage under Trial Judges and Solicitors Retirement Fund. - It is the intention of the General Assembly that any person whose office is within the ambit of the statutory provisions, creating and governing the Trial Judges and Solicitors Retirement Fund, shall participate in this retirement system commencing with the time provided in the provisions and continuing until one ceases to hold the position or office covered by the fund; such a person may not waive or renounce such coverage. 1968 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 68-475.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur. 2d. - 17A Am. Jur. 2d, Contracts, § 247 et seq.

C.J.S. - 17 C.J.S., Contracts, § 212.

ALR. - Waiver of benefit of statute or rule by which allegation in pleading of execution or of consideration of written instrument must be taken as true unless met by verified denial, 67 A.L.R. 1283 .

Stipulation of parties as to the law, 92 A.L.R. 663 .

Waiver of statutory right to minimum wage or benefit of regulation as to hours of labor, 102 A.L.R. 842 ; 129 A.L.R. 1145 .

Right of employee of public contractor to maintain action against latter based upon statutory obligation as to rate of wages or upon provisions in that regard in the contract between contractor and the public, 144 A.L.R. 1035 .

Agreement by a member or members of a class for whose protection a bond is required by statute, to indemnify surety, as contrary to public policy, 154 A.L.R. 838 .

Acceptance by building or construction contractor of payments under his contract as a waiver of right of action upon implied warranty as to conditions affecting cost, 173 A.L.R. 308 .

Estoppel to assert invalidity of decree of divorce for lack of domicile at the divorce forum or failure to obtain jurisdictions of person, 175 A.L.R. 538 .

Validity of contractual stipulation or provision waiving debtor's exemption, 94 A.L.R.2d 967.

Validity, in contract for installment sale of consumer goods, or commercial paper given in connection therewith, of provision waiving, as against assignee, defenses good against seller, 39 A.L.R.3d 518.

Validity of exculpatory clause in lease exempting lessor from liability, 49 A.L.R.3d 321.

Right of accused, in state criminal trial, to insist, over prosecutor's or court's objection, on trial by court without jury, 37 A.L.R.4th 304.

1-3-8. Binding effect of legislation upon state.

The state is not bound by the passage of a law unless it is named therein or unless the words of the law are so plain, clear, and unmistakable as to leave no doubt as to the intention of the General Assembly.

(Civil Code 1895, § 3; Civil Code 1910, § 3; Code 1933, § 102-109.)

History of section. - The language of this Code section is derived in part from the decision in Lingo v. Harris, 73 Ga. 28 (1884), and Mayor of Brunswick v. King, 91 Ga. 524 , 17 S.E. 940 (1892).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Section applicable to General Assembly. - Like the state, the General Assembly, including its committees, commissions, and offices, is not subject to a law unless named therein or the intent that it be included be clear and unmistakable. Harrison Co. v. Code Revision Com., 244 Ga. 325 , 260 S.E.2d 30 (1979).

University trustees (now regents) are not a sovereignty. Trustees of Univ. of Ga. v. Denmark, 141 Ga. 390 , 81 S.E. 238 (1914), overruled on other grounds, Hood v. First Nat'l Bank, 219 Ga. 283 , 133 S.E.2d 19 (1963).

Later court decisions indicate disposition not to broaden or increase the exceptions to this section. Butler v. Merritt, 113 Ga. 238 , 38 S.E. 751 (1901); Fowler v. Rome Dispensary, 5 Ga. App. 36 , 62 S.E. 660 (1908).

Statute providing for condemnation of property for public use is applicable only to private property, and not to property owned by the state. Western Union Tel. Co. v. Western & A.R.R., 142 Ga. 532 , 83 S.E. 135 (1914).

Municipal building ordinance ultra vires insofar as affects state. - Where repairs are being made upon a building owned by the state, on state property, it is wholly a matter of state concern, and a municipal building ordinance is ultra vires insofar as it affects the state. City of Atlanta v. State, 181 Ga. 346 , 182 S.E. 184 (1935).

Cited in Wilson v. City of Eatonton, 180 Ga. 598 , 180 S.E. 227 (1935); Kirk v. Bray, 181 Ga. 814 , 184 S.E. 733 (1935); Jones v. Staton, 78 Ga. App. 890 , 52 S.E.2d 481 (1949); Anderson v. Department of Family & Children Servs., 118 Ga. App. 318 , 163 S.E.2d 328 (1968); Fuqua Television, Inc. v. Fleming, 134 Ga. App. 731 , 215 S.E.2d 694 (1975); Elbert County v. Georgia Insurers Insolvency Pool, 185 Ga. App. 803 , 366 S.E.2d 153 (1988); Moreland v. State, 304 Ga. App. 468 , 696 S.E.2d 448 (2010).

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Section applicable to municipal corporations and state instrumentalities. - This section not only applies to municipal corporations, but also applies to public corporations that are an instrumentality of the state. 1958-59 Op. Att'y Gen. p. 5.

Nothing in lien laws in former Code 1933, §§ 67-1701 and 67-2001 et seq. (see now O.C.G.A. § 44-14-360 et seq.) indicate intention to bind the state thereby; these laws are in derogation of the common law, must be strictly construed, and one claiming thereunder must bring oneself clearly within the law. 1957 Op. Att'y Gen. p. 179.

State property is not subject to regulation by lesser governmental authorities, for the reason that such lesser governments exercise only the powers delegated to them by the state, and any general delegation of power does not apply to the state or its instrumentalities in the absence of express language or clear implication in the statutes. 1971 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 71-113.

City cannot affect property owned by the State of Georgia or the state's agencies and any ordinance affecting such property would be ultra vires and of no effect as far as the state and the state's property are concerned. 1967 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 67-73.

State park authority not required to obtain dairy processing plant license. - A state park authority, created as a body corporate and politic and deemed to be an instrumentality of the state and a public corporation, is not required to obtain a dairy processing plant license to operate an ice cream parlor. 1958-59 Op. Att'y Gen. p. 5.

Licensing requirements do not apply to state and local governments. 1974 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 74-17.

Lobbying registering provisions not applicable to state or political subdivisions. - State, county, and city officials, employees, and their representatives who intend, in their official capacities, to aid or oppose the enactment of any bill by either house of the General Assembly were not required to register with the Secretary of State pursuant to former Code 1933, § 47-1001 et seq. since nothing in the law specifically made the provisions applicable to the state or its political subdivisions. 1975 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 75-28.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

C.J.S. - 82 C.J.S., Statutes, §§ 84 et seq., 389 et seq.

ALR. - Applicability of constitutional provision requiring reenactment of altered or amended statute to one which leaves intact terms of original statute, but transfers or extends its operation to another field, 67 A.L.R. 564 .

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.

1-3-9. Effect and enforcement of foreign laws.

The laws of other states and foreign nations shall have no force and effect of themselves within this state further than is provided by the Constitution of the United States and is recognized by the comity of states. The courts shall enforce this comity, unless restrained by the General Assembly, so long as its enforcement is not contrary to the policy or prejudicial to the interests of this state.

(Orig. Code 1863, § 10; Code 1868, § 9; Code 1873, § 9; Code 1882, § 9; Civil Code 1895, § 9; Civil Code 1910, § 9; Code 1933, § 102-110.)

Cross references. - Rights of citizens of other states or nations to sue or give evidence, § 1-2-10 .

Enforcement in state of money judgments rendered in foreign states, § 9-12-110 et seq.

Judicial enforcement of taxes imposed by other states, § 48-2-80 .

Law reviews. - For article discussing convergence of standards governing limits of state's personal jurisdiction and applicability of state substantive law, see 9 J. of Pub. L. 282 (1960). For article advocating replacement of the lex loci delicti doctrine in Georgia with a national interest analysis approach, see 20 Mercer L. Rev. 1 (1969). For articles on conflict of law, see 34 Mercer L. Rev. 469 (1983) and 35 Mercer L. Rev. 417 (1984). For article discussing recent developments in the area of conflict of laws, see 39 Mercer L. Rev. 411 (1987). For article comparing "rules" and "analysis" approaches to choice of law, see 40 Mercer L. Rev. 869 (1989). For note, "Interstitial Lawmaking: Uniformity or Conformity?" see 32 Mercer L. Rev. 1235 (1981).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

ANALYSIS

General Consideration

Laws of other states have no force in Georgia except on principles of comity. Gulf Collateral, Inc. v. Morgan, 415 F. Supp. 319 (S.D. Ga. 1976).

Nature of comity. - Comity is reciprocity. It cannot be that the laws of the several states of the union differ so materially in policy or in the nature of their institutions as to require that unquestionable defensive right of every sovereignty, that of protecting its citizens against the operation of the laws or doctrines of another state, incompatible with their safety, or injurious to their interest. Jackson v. Johnson, 34 Ga. 511 , 89 Am. Dec. 263 (1866).

Comity requires that state courts be afforded opportunity to perform duties. - Although the states are sovereign entities, they are bound along with their officials, including their judges, by the United States Constitution and the federal statutory law. Principles of comity in the United States federal system require that the state courts be afforded the opportunity to perform their duty, which includes responding to attacks on state authority based on the federal law, or, if the litigation is wholly private, construing and applying the applicable federal requirements. Webb v. Webb, 451 U.S. 493, 101 S. Ct. 1889 , 68 L. Ed. 2 d 392 (1981).

Public policy controlled over contract terms. - In answering a question certified from a federal appeals court in an action concerning a noncompetition agreement, the Georgia Supreme Court held that, based on O.C.G.A. § 1-3-9 , the law of the jurisdiction chosen by the parties to a contract to govern their contractual rights would not be applied by Georgia courts where application of the chosen law would contravene the policy of, or would be prejudicial to the interests of Georgia, and that covenants against disclosure and competition affected the interests of Georgia, namely the flow of information needed for competition among businesses, and hence their validity would be determined by the public policy of Georgia. Convergys Corp. v. Keener, 276 Ga. 808 , 582 S.E.2d 84 (2003).

Workers' compensation. - Employer who paid a workers' compensation claimant workers' compensation benefits under Texas law was not entitled to a subrogation claim to the proceeds of a tort settlement against the alleged tortfeasors under the full faith and credit and comity provisions of the U.S. Constitution. Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Craig, 266 Ga. App. 443 , 597 S.E.2d 520 (2004).

Cited in Shore Acres Properties, Inc. v. Morgan, 44 Ga. App. 128 , 160 S.E. 705 (1931); Patterson v. Patterson, 208 Ga. 7 , 64 S.E.2d 441 (1951); R. & J. Dick Co. v. Bass, 295 F. Supp. 758 (N.D. Ga. 1968); Roadway Express, Inc. v. Warren, 163 Ga. App. 759 , 295 S.E.2d 743 (1982); CS-Lakeview at Gwinnett, Inc. v. Simon Prop. Group, Inc., 283 Ga. 426 , 659 S.E.2d 359 (2008); Global Link Logistics, Inc. v. Briles, 296 Ga. App. 175 , 674 S.E.2d 52 (2009).

When Doctrine of Comity Invoked
1. General Rule

In enforcing comity, Georgia does so where not contrary to state policy. - In enforcing comity in respect to the laws of sister states, Georgia does so only so long as its enforcement is not contrary to the policy of this state. Gulf Collateral, Inc. v. Morgan, 415 F. Supp. 319 (S.D. Ga. 1976).

2. Right to Sue

State courts will not exclude Alabama suitors where Alabama courts do not exclude Georgia suitors. - Only in this sense is the expression "reciprocity is comity" applicable to causes of action springing from wrongful deaths occurring in Alabama. Southern Ry. v. Decker, 5 Ga. App. 21 , 62 S.E. 678 (1908).

If foreign appointed administrator becomes state resident, liable to be sued here. - If an administrator appointed in Alabama, together with the securities on the administrator's bond, become residents of this state, they are liable to be sued here on a decree rendered in this state on a bill filed by the distributees for an account and settlement. Johnson v. Jackson, 56 Ga. 326 , 21 Am. R. 285 (1876).

When receiver may sue in foreign jurisdiction. - While a chancery or statutory receiver cannot sue in the courts of a foreign jurisdiction by virtue of the receiver appointment alone, the receiver can do so when the receiver is expressly authorized by statute to sue, or when the receiver is expressly or by necessary implication vested with title, or when he is made a quasi-assignee or representative of creditors. Bullock v. Oliver, 155 Ga. 151 , 116 S.E. 293 , 29 A.L.R. 1484 , answer conformed to, 30 Ga. App. 91 , 117 S.E. 112 (1923).

3. Statutes, Laws, and Judgments

Foreign citizen cannot claim local garnishment exemption when property seized here. - Under the comity of states, a citizen and resident of Alabama cannot claim the benefit of our exemption laws as against a garnishment when one's property happens to be seized on process here. In this respect "reciprocity is comity" according to this section. Kyle & Co. v. Montgomery, 73 Ga. 337 (1884).

Courts of Georgia will not be bound by interpretations of foreign state upon common law. Krogg v. Atlanta & W. Point R.R., 77 Ga. 202 , 4 Am. St. R. 79 (1886).

Georgia must give full faith and credit to sister state's judgment. - Even if the statutory law of this state is different from that of a sister state, and even if this would prevent recovery, the forum state (Georgia) must give full faith and credit to a judgment rendered by the sister state. Colodny v. Krause, 136 Ga. App. 379 , 221 S.E.2d 239 (1975).

Judgment of foreign state construing corporate charter followed by state courts. - A judgment rendered by the courts of a state in which a corporation is chartered, construing the charter with respect to the powers conferred therein, will be followed by the courts of this state. Clark v. Turner, 73 Ga. 1 (1884).

Georgia courts recognize and prospectively enforce foreign alimony or child support decree. - Although a foreign decree may be nonfinal because it can be prospectively modified, for reasons of comity Georgia courts will recognize and give prospective enforcement to a foreign alimony or child support decree by establishing it as the decree of a Georgia court through domestication and treating it as though it were a local decree. Williamson v. Williamson, 247 Ga. 260 , 275 S.E.2d 42 , cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1097, 102 S. Ct. 669 , 70 L. Ed. 2 d 638 (1981).

Comity is not applied where foreign divorce is obtained under circumstances offending state's public policy as found in its Constitution and statutes and the decisions of its courts. Christopher v. Christopher, 198 Ga. 361 , 31 S.E.2d 818 (1944).

4. Contracts

Law applicable in governing contracts. - Contracts are to be governed as to their nature, validity, and interpretation by the law of the place where they were made, except where it appears from the contract that it is to be performed in a state other than that in which it was made, in which case the laws of that sister state will be applied in the enforcement of any contract to be there performed, so long as such laws do not conflict with the statute, powers, or rights of the state wherein it was executed and sought to be enforced. Tillman v. Gibson, 44 Ga. App. 440 , 161 S.E. 630 (1931).

The conflicts rule in this state is that where a contract is made and is to be performed in another state, the laws of the latter state will govern as to the validity, nature, obligation, and construction of the contract, where they are duly pleaded and proved, and such laws will be enforced by comity in this state unless they are contrary to public policy or prejudicial to the interests of this state. Rohner, Gehrig & Co. v. Capital City Bank, 655 F.2d 571 (5th Cir. 1981).

Contracts made and performed in another state will be enforced unless such state's laws are contrary to Georgia public policy. Nationwide Gen. Ins. Co. v. Parnham, 182 Ga. App. 823 , 357 S.E.2d 139 (1987).

Law applicable to contracts affecting property. - As to contracts affecting realty, the law of the state where the land lies will be applied, and to all kinds of personal property, it is governed by the lex domicili of the owner. Clark v. Baker, 186 Ga. 65 , 196 S.E. 750 (1938).

Foreign contract and laws enforced in this state. - Whenever a contract made in a place outside of the territorial jurisdiction of this state is sought to be enforced in this state, courts here will enforce the contract and give effect to the laws of the place in which it was executed, so far as that can be done without violating the law of this state or its established policy. Massachusetts Benefit Life Ass'n v. Robinson, 104 Ga. 256 , 30 S.E. 918 , 42 L.R.A. 261 (1898).

Contracts made and performed in another state will be enforced unless such state's laws are contrary to the public policy of the enforcing state. Terry v. Mays, 161 Ga. App. 328 , 291 S.E.2d 44 (1982).

Contract executed in foreign state, not intended as Georgia contract, treated as foreign contract. - Where a contract not only is executed in a foreign state, but contains nothing to indicate by the place of performance or otherwise that it was intended to be construed as a Georgia contract, it will be treated as a contract of the foreign state and governed by its laws. Trustees of Jesse Parker Williams Hosp. v. Nisbet, 189 Ga. 807 , 7 S.E.2d 737 (1940); Terry v. Mays, 161 Ga. App. 328 , 291 S.E.2d 44 (1982).

Foreign marriage settlement applicable to Georgia lands. - A marriage settlement executed between persons who were then and continued to be citizens of South Carolina applied to lands situated in Georgia according to South Carolina inheritance laws. Brown v. Ransey, 74 Ga. 210 (1884).

State's public policy is generally limited to enforcement of money contracts performed in this state, and public policy does not extend to the enforcement of valid contracts made in other states, for which the rules of comity will be observed. Commercial Credit Plan, Inc. v. Parker, 152 Ga. App. 409 , 263 S.E.2d 220 (1979).

Effect of statutory prohibition in enforcing state. - A contract is not necessarily contrary to the public policy of the enforcing state merely because it could not validly have been made there, notwithstanding the making of such contracts in the place of the forum is expressly prohibited by statute. Terry v. Mays, 161 Ga. App. 328 , 291 S.E.2d 44 (1982).

Contract provision regarding support following artificial insemination. - A Florida contract under which a mother relinquished her right to hold a sperm donor responsible for any resulting child was not unenforceable under O.C.G.A. § 1-3-9 as contrary to public policy. The contract was authorized by Florida law, and Georgia had held that paternity through artificial insemination did not confer responsibility for support. Brown v. Gadson, 288 Ga. App. 323 , 654 S.E.2d 179 (2007), cert. denied, No. S08C0456, 2008 Ga. LEXIS 236 (Ga. 2008).

5. Property

Assets of deceased distributed according to law of state where representatives appointed. - The assets of the deceased should be applied to the payment of debts, or be distributed amongst the next of kin, by the courts of this state according to the law of the state where the representatives were appointed. This is the comity of states as recognized by this section. Johnson v. Jackson, 56 Ga. 326 , 21 Am. R. 285 (1876).

Right and disposition of personalty is to be governed by the law of the domicile of the owner, and not the law of the location of the property. Grote v. Pace, 71 Ga. 231 (1883).

When Doctrine of Comity Not Invoked
1. General Rule

Our courts are not required by comity to enforce what is not law in other state. Tennessee v. Virgin, 36 Ga. 388 (1867).

Foreign law not enforced if penal only, or if contravenes established public policy. - A foreign law will not be enforced if it is penal only and relates to the punishing of public wrongs as contradistinguished from the redressing of private injuries, or if it contravenes our established public policy, or the recognized standards of civilization and good morals. Eubanks v. Banks, 34 Ga. 407 (1866); Reeves v. Southern Ry., 121 Ga. 561 , 49 S.E. 674 , 70 L.R.A. 513 , 2 Ann. Cas. 207 (1905); Southern Ry. v. Decker, 5 Ga. App. 21 , 62 S.E. 678 (1908).

Foreign law will not be enforced if it is penal only and relates to the punishing of public wrongs as contradistinguished from the redressing of private injuries. Laminoirs-Trefileries-Cableries de Lens, S.A. v. Southwire Co., 484 F. Supp. 1063 (N.D. Ga. 1980).

Foreign laws not enforced if immoral or violative of conscience. - Where the law of a sister state contravenes the public policy of Georgia or is immoral or violative of conscience, it will not be enforced in this state. Gulf Collateral, Inc. v. Morgan, 415 F. Supp. 319 (S.D. Ga. 1976).

In diversity cases, governing law that of state in which federal court sits. - There has been no repeal or modification of the principle that enforcement of the laws of another state is not required where they run counter to the public policy of Georgia. In diversity cases involving that issue, the governing law is that of the state in which the federal court is sitting. Gulf Collateral, Inc. v. Morgan, 415 F. Supp. 319 (S.D. Ga. 1976).

2. Statutes and Judgments

Foreign legislature cannot prescribe laws to be recognized and enforced in courts of this state, even though the law as to which cognizance is sought to be excluded is a statute of the state whose legislature seeks to create the exclusion. Southern Ry. v. Decker, 5 Ga. App. 21 , 62 S.E. 678 (1908).

Comity cannot be invoked to give extraterritorial effect to a judgment procured by fraudulent representations in order to obtain jurisdiction of the court. Christopher v. Christopher, 198 Ga. 361 , 31 S.E.2d 818 (1944).

Indiana products liability law contravened Georgia public policy. - Public policy exception to lex loci delicti applied and Georgia law should have been applied in a design defect products liability case because Georgia recognized strict liability in such cases, pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 51-1-11 , whereas Indiana law required a showing that the manufacturer failed to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances. Bailey v. Cottrell, Inc., 313 Ga. App. 371 , 721 S.E.2d 571 (2011).

3. Contracts

Law chosen by parties not applied where contravenes state interests. - The law of the jurisdiction chosen by the parties to a contract to govern their contractual rights will not be applied by the Georgia courts where the application of the chosen law would contravene the policy of, or would be prejudicial to, the interests of this state. Dothan Aviation Corp. v. Miller, 620 F.2d 504 (5th Cir. 1980).

Comity cannot be invoked in aid of award, where illegal transaction was submitted to arbitrators. Benton & Brother v. Singleton, 114 Ga. 548 , 40 S.E. 811 , 58 L.R.A. 181 (1902).

Stipulations in foreign contract arbitrarily limiting negligence liability of common carrier not enforced. - So far as stipulations of a contract limit the common-law liability of the carrier as an insurer, or for losses occurring by unavoidable accident, they will be enforced by the courts of this state; but in such a case, it being contrary to the public policy of this state to allow a common carrier, even by express contract, to make an arbitrary limitation upon its liability for negligence of its agents or servants, stipulations to that effect will not be enforced. Southern Express Co. v. Hanaw, 134 Ga. 445 , 67 S.E. 944 , 137 Am. St. R. 227 (1910).

Neither is foreign law providing married woman liable upon suretyship contract. - The law of a foreign state providing that a married woman is liable upon her contract of suretyship will not be enforced in this state under this section. Sally v. Bank of Union, 25 Ga. App. 509 , 103 S.E. 798 (1920); Ulman, Magill & Jordan Woolen Co. v. Magill, 155 Ga. 555 , 117 S.E. 657 (1923).

Foreign carriage contract not necessarily governed by foreign laws where partly performed in state. - Though a contract of carriage is made in a foreign state, it is not necessarily governed in matters of construction and effect by the laws of that state, where the contract is to be partly performed in this state. Myers v. Atlantic Greyhound Lines, 52 Ga. App. 698 , 184 S.E. 414 (1936).

Foreign provision providing that surety or obligor not released along with cosurety or coobligor unenforceable. - A Tennessee statute providing that the release of a cosurety or coobligor does not release the other surety or obligor when the parties, other than those not released, stipulate that the other surety or obligor is not released is contrary to the public policy of this state and will not be enforced. Kent v. Hair, 60 Ga. App. 652 , 4 S.E.2d 703 (1939).

Gambling transactions contravene the public policy of Georgia and constitute obligations unenforceable in its courts. Gulf Collateral, Inc. v. Morgan, 415 F. Supp. 319 (S.D. Ga. 1976).

Validity of covenants against disclosure determined by state's public policy. - Covenants against disclosure, like covenants against competition, affect the interests of this state, namely the flow of information needed for competition among businesses, and hence their validity is determined by the public policy of this state. Nasco, Inc. v. Gimbert, 239 Ga. 675 , 238 S.E.2d 368 (1977).

Validity of covenants against competition determined by state's public policy. - Covenants against competition affect the interests of this state, hence their validity is determined by the public policy of this state. Dothan Aviation Corp. v. Miller, 620 F.2d 504 (5th Cir. 1980).

4. Property

Comity not applicable to suit by receiver unless appointment provision vests property title in receiver. - The principles of comity do not apply to a suit by a chancery receiver in a foreign jurisdiction, nor to a suit by a statutory receiver, unless the statute under which the receiver is appointed vests title in the receiver to the property the receiver represents. Oliver v. Bullock, 28 Ga. App. 446 , 111 S.E. 680 (1922), rev'd on other grounds, 155 Ga. 151 , 116 S.E. 293 , 29 A.L.R. 1484 , answer conformed to, 30 Ga. App. 91 , 117 S.E. 112 (1923).

State has no jurisdiction to bring foreign administrator to account where the administrator is visiting here on business. Jackson v. Johnson, 34 Ga. 511 , 89 Am. Dec. 263 (1866).

Provisions of foreign will contrary to state policy not enforced. - Our laws will not enforce the provisions of a will made in another state which are directly contrary to the declared policy of this state, but the judgment of a competent tribunal as to the will, where the will was executed, will be respected by the courts of this state. Caruthers v. Corbin, 38 Ga. 75 (1868).

Pleading and Proving Foreign Law

Foreign law must be pled and proved. - Where a party seeks to rely on the law of another state as furnishing the basis for a right of recovery or defense different from what it would be under the laws of this state, or the common law, the law of the foreign state should be pled and proved. Southern Express Co. v. Hanaw, 134 Ga. 445 , 67 S.E. 944 , 137 Am. St. R. 227 (1910).

Where pled, decisions of foreign courts of last resort adopted in construing statute. - Where a statute of a foreign state is pled as being the basis of a cause of action arising in that state, in a suit instituted in this state, and a construction of the statute becomes necessary, the decisions of the courts of last resort of the foreign state in construing the statute will be adopted; and where it appears that there are no decisions of the courts in that state construing the statute, but that the statute was verbally adopted from the statute of another state, the decisions of the state from which it was adopted will be considered in construing the statute, especially those decisions construing it which had been made prior to the adoption of the statute in the latter state. Lee v. Lott, 50 Ga. App. 39 , 177 S.E. 92 (1934).

Foreign judgment, if proved, may have effect of former local adjudication. - Under the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution, a judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction in Tennessee, if properly proved, may have the effect of a former adjudication in matters pending in the courts of this state. Roadway Express, Inc. v. McBroom, 61 Ga. App. 223 , 6 S.E.2d 460 (1939).

Laws of state of contract's performance, where proved, govern validity, nature, obligation, and construction. - Where a contract is made in one state to be performed in another, the laws of the latter state will govern as to the validity, nature, obligation, and construction of the contract, where they are duly pleaded and proved, and such laws will be enforced by comity in this state unless they are contrary to public policy or prejudicial to the interests of this state. Pratt v. Sloan, 41 Ga. App. 150 , 152 S.E. 275 (1930).

Where a contract is made in one state to be performed in another, the laws of the latter state will govern as to the validity, nature, obligation, and construction of the contract, when they are pleaded and proved, and this general rule is particularly applicable to liability for a passenger's baggage. Myers v. Atlantic Greyhound Lines, 52 Ga. App. 698 , 184 S.E. 414 (1936).

Contract of foreign state originally part of colonies governed by common law, absent contrary pleading. - A contract of a foreign state which constituted one of the original 13 colonies, or which was derived from territory included in one of the colonies, will be construed and governed by the common law, in the absence of any pleading to the contrary, and in such a case, the construction of the common law given by the courts of this state will control, in preference to the construction given by the courts of the state of the contract. Trustees of Jesse Parker Williams Hosp. v. Nisbet, 189 Ga. 807 , 7 S.E.2d 737 (1940).

Foreign law must be pleaded where state never part of English territory. - In an action on a contract of a state that was never a part of English territory, embraced in one of the original 13 colonies or belonging thereto, the law of the foreign state must be pleaded, in the absence of which it will be presumed that the law of this state obtains therein. Trustees of Jesse Parker Williams Hosp. v. Nisbet, 189 Ga. 807 , 7 S.E.2d 737 (1940).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur. 2d. - 16 Am. Jur. 2d, Conflict of Laws, § 7 et seq. 16B Am. Jur. 2d, Constitutional Law, § 1025 et seq. 44B Am. Jur. 2d, International Law, §§ 1 et seq., 13 et seq.

C.J.S. - 15A C.J.S., Conflict of Laws, §§ 1 et seq., 6 et seq. 48 C.J.S., International Law, §§ 5 et seq., 22 et seq., 26 et seq.

ALR. - Statute relating to liability of officers or directors of private corporation as penal within principle that penal laws will not be enforced extraterritorially, 25 A.L.R. 1428 .

Conflict of laws as to contributory negligence, 32 A.L.R. 796 .

Extraterritorial effect of confiscations of property and nationalization of corporations, 37 A.L.R. 726 ; 41 A.L.R. 745 ; 65 A.L.R. 1494 ; 139 A.L.R. 1209 .

Reciprocity as affecting comity, 50 A.L.R. 30 ; 87 A.L.R. 973 .

Inhibition by decree of divorce or statute of state or country in which it is granted, against remarriage, as affecting a marriage celebrated in another state or country, 51 A.L.R. 325 .

Effect in third state of marriage valid where celebrated but void by law of domicile of parties, 51 A.L.R. 1412 .

Applicability to contracts made or to be performed in another state or country, of a statute of the forum permitting persons injured to maintain action directly against indemnity insurer, 54 A.L.R. 515 ; 120 A.L.R. 855 .

Death statute as a penal law within the rule that courts of one state or country will not enforce penal laws of another, 62 A.L.R. 1330 .

Limitation applicable to cause of action created by statute of another state which allows a longer period than the statute of the forum, 68 A.L.R. 217 ; 146 A.L.R. 1356 .

Bar of statute of nonclaim of decedent's domicile as affecting assertion of claim elsewhere, 72 A.L.R. 1030 .

Duty of courts to follow decisions of other states, on questions of common law or unwritten law, in which the cause of action had its situs, 73 A.L.R. 897 .

Conflict of laws as to character, form, and nature of action that may be brought upon a foreign contract, 74 A.L.R. 1331 .

Nature of differences between lex loci and lex fori which will sustain or defeat jurisdiction of a cause of action for death arising under the law of another state or country, 77 A.L.R. 1311 .

Conflict of laws as to construction and effect of will devising real property, 79 A.L.R. 91 .

Action in one state or country on bond given pursuant to statute of another, 85 A.L.R. 847 .

Jurisdiction of federal court or court of sister state of proceedings pursuant to state or foreign statute to compel arbitration, 85 A.L.R. 1124 .

Right of personal representative appointed at the forum or in a jurisdiction where decedent was domiciled or where the tort occurred, to maintain action for death under foreign statute which provides that the action shall be brought by executor or administrator, 85 A.L.R. 1231 ; 52 A.L.R.2d 1170.

Conflict of laws as regards survival of cause of action and revival of pending action upon death of party, 87 A.L.R. 852 ; 42 A.L.R.2d 1170.

Conflict of laws as to conditional sale of chattels, 87 A.L.R. 1308 ; 13 A.L.R.2d 1312.

Assumption of or refusal to assume jurisdiction by court of one state or country, of action on contract involving foreign elements, 87 A.L.R. 1425 ; 90 A.L.R.2d 1109.

Lex loci or lex fori as the governing law as to whether the case or question is to be submitted to the jury or determined by the court, 89 A.L.R. 1278 ; 149 A.L.R. 775 .

Conflict of laws as to period of limitation to enforce stockholders' statutory liability, 113 A.L.R. 510 ; 143 A.L.R. 1442 .

Recognition of foreign marriage as affected by policy in respect of incestuous marriages, 117 A.L.R. 186 .

Conflict of laws as to usury, 125 A.L.R. 482 .

Constitutionality, construction, and application of compacts and statutes involving co-operation between states, 134 A.L.R. 1411 .

Conflict of laws regarding deficiency in respect of debt secured by mortgage or deed of trust, 136 A.L.R. 1057 .

Conflict of laws as to trusts inter vivos, 139 A.L.R. 1129 .

Duty of courts of one state to recognize and give effect to decrees of divorce rendered in other states, as affected by constructive service of process or lack of domicile at divorce forum, 143 A.L.R. 1294 ; 1 A.L.R.2d 1385; 28 A.L.R.2d 1303.

Conflict of laws as to exercise of power of appointment, 150 A.L.R. 519 .

Recognition of status created by foreign adoption or legitimation for purposes of testate or intestate distribution of decedent's estate in a jurisdiction in which such status could not have been created even in the case of one domiciled there, 153 A.L.R. 199 .

Conflict of laws as regards brokerage contracts, 159 A.L.R. 266 .

Enforceability of federal penal statutes in state courts, 162 A.L.R. 373 ; 172 A.L.R. 231 .

Estoppel to assert invalidity of decree of divorce for lack of domicile at the divorce forum or failure to obtain jurisdiction of person, 175 A.L.R. 538 .

Inclusion in domestic judgment or record, in action upon a judgment of a sister state, of findings respecting the cause of action on which the judgment in the sister state was rendered, 10 A.L.R.2d 435.

Conflict of laws as to chattel mortgages and conditional sales of chattels, 13 A.L.R.2d 1312.

Law governing validity and construction of, and rights and obligations arising under, a lease of real property, 15 A.L.R.2d 1199.

Conflict of laws as to survival or revival of wrongful death actions against estate or personal representative of wrongdoer, 17 A.L.R.2d 690.

Stay of civil proceedings pending determination of action in another state or country, 19 A.L.R.2d 301.

Conflict of laws as to partnership matters, 29 A.L.R.2d 295.

Conflict of laws as to elements and measure of damages recoverable for breach of contract, 50 A.L.R.2d 227.

Enforceability of provision in agreement for attorney's fees, valid in state of its execution or performance, but invalid under law of forum, 54 A.L.R.2d 1053.

What law governs employee's right to damages for wrongful discharge, 61 A.L.R.2d 917.

What law governs as to proper party plaintiff in contract action, 62 A.L.R.2d 486.

Right of state or its political subdivision to maintain action in another state for support and maintenance of defendant's child, parent, or dependent in plaintiff's institution, 67 A.L.R.2d 771.

Conflict of laws as to interest recoverable as part of the damages in a tort action, 68 A.L.R.2d 1337.

What law governs effect of release of one tort-feasor upon liability of another tort-feasor, 69 A.L.R.2d 1034.

Conflict of laws as to group insurance, 72 A.L.R.2d 695.

Extraterritorial recognition of, and propriety of counterinjunction against, injunction against actions in courts of other states, 74 A.L.R.2d 828.

Presumption as to law of foreign countries, 75 A.L.R.2d 529.

Choice of law in application of automobile guest statutes, 95 A.L.R.2d 12.

Law governing assignment of wages or salary, 1 A.L.R.3d 927.

Modern status of rule that substantive rights of parties to a tort action are governed by the law of the place of the wrong, 29 A.L.R.3d 603; 63 A.L.R.4th 167.

Conflict of laws as to presumptions and burden of proof concerning facts of civil case, 35 A.L.R.3d 289.

Conflict of laws as to right of action for loss of consortium, 46 A.L.R.3d 880.

Choice of law as to application of comparative negligence doctrine, 86 A.L.R.3d 1206.

Modern status of choice of law in application of automobile guest statutes, 63 A.L.R.4th 167.

1-3-10. Execution of writings and contracts.

Except for wills of personalty of persons domiciled in another state or country, when writings or contracts are intended to have effect in this state they must be executed in conformity to the laws of this state.

(Orig. Code 1863, § 9; Code 1868, § 8; Code 1873, § 8; Code 1882, § 8; Civil Code 1895, § 8; Civil Code 1910, § 8; Code 1933, § 102-108; Ga. L. 1962, p. 156, § 1; Ga. L. 1963, p. 188, § 38.)

Cross references. - Required writing; signing; witnesses; codicil, § 53-4-20 .

Law reviews. - For article criticizing Georgia's traditional rules for determining choice of law questions and discussing available alternatives, see 34 Mercer L. Rev. 787 (1983). For comment on Guy F. Atkinson Co. v. Fimian, 85 Ga. App. 200 , 68 S.E.2d 236 (1951), as to choice of law governing a contract made in a different state than that in which it was to be performed, see 3 Mercer L. Rev. 346 (1952). For comment on Fimian v. Guy F. Atkinson Co., 209 Ga. 113 , 70 S.E.2d 762 (1952), see 15 Ga. B.J. 217 (1952).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

ANALYSIS

General Consideration

Editor's notes. - In light of the similarity of the statutory provisions, annotations decided under former Code 1933, § 102-108, prior to amendment by Ga. L. 1962, p. 156, § 1, effective January 1, 1964, which read, in part, "The validity, form, and effect of writings or contracts are determined by the law of the place where executed." are included in the annotations for this Code section.

Laws of other states have no force in Georgia except on the principles of comity. Gulf Collateral, Inc. v. Morgan, 415 F. Supp. 319 (S.D. Ga. 1976).

Foreign laws not enforced if contravenes public policy or conscience, or immoral. - Where the law of a sister state contravenes the public policy of Georgia or is immoral or violative of conscience, it will not be enforced in this state. Gulf Collateral, Inc. v. Morgan, 415 F. Supp. 319 (S.D. Ga. 1976).

Cited in Reliance Realty Co. v. Mitchell, 41 Ga. App. 124 , 152 S.E. 295 (1930); Franklin Fire Ins. Co. v. Shahan, 46 Ga. App. 181 , 167 S.E. 194 (1932); Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. Howard, 67 F.2d 961 (5th Cir. 1933); Lefkoff v. Sicro, 189 Ga. 554 , 6 S.E.2d 687 (1939); Fenn v. Castelanna, 196 Ga. 22 , 25 S.E.2d 796 (1943); Mutual Benefit Health & Accident Ass'n v. Brunke, 276 F.2d 53 (5th Cir. 1960); Union Camp Corp. v. Dyal, 460 F.2d 678 (5th Cir. 1972); Putnam v. Williams, 652 F.2d 497 (5th Cir. 1981).

Choice of Law

Application in tort cases of lex loci delicto commissi. - A state court ought to apply the substantive law of the state or county in which the tort occurred under the lex loci delicto commissi doctrine. However, if the application of foreign law would prove insurmountably difficult, state substantive law may govern given both parties' concurrence. Lavine v. General Mills, Inc., 519 F. Supp. 332 (N.D. Ga. 1981).

Lex loci governs as to the nature, construction and obligation of contracts. Missouri State Life Ins. Co. v. Lovelace, 1 Ga. App. 446 , 58 S.E. 93 (1907).

The conflicts rule in this state is that where a contract is made and is to be performed in another state, the laws of the latter state will govern as to the validity, nature, obligation, and construction of the contract, where they are duly pleaded and proved, and such laws will be enforced by comity in this state unless they are contrary to public policy or prejudicial to the interests of this state. Rohner, Gehrig & Co. v. Capital City Bank, 655 F.2d 571 (5th Cir. 1981).

Law of the place where contract is made is prima facie that which parties intended and that such law ought, therefore, to prevail. King v. King, 218 Ga. 534 , 129 S.E.2d 147 (1962), appeal dismissed, 375 U.S. 17, 84 S. Ct. 101 , 11 L. Ed. 2 d 45 (1963).

Rule of the lex loci will be applied in the federal courts sitting in Georgia and acting upon an instrument made and to be performed in this state. Martin v. Bartow Iron Works, 35 Ga. 320 , 16 F. Cas. 888 (N.D. Ga. 1867).

Lex loci not enforced where contrary to morals, general policy, or conscience. - While the lex loci, as a general rule, governs the construction of contracts, it is subject, in practice, to the great controlling idea that they will not be enforced, by comity, if they involve anything immoral, contrary to general policy, or violative of the conscience of the state called on to give them effect. Eubanks v. Banks, 34 Ga. 407 (1866).

Where enforcement of a contract in Georgia draws public policy considerations into question, those public policy considerations will be determined according to laws of Georgia. Scherer v. Scherer, 249 Ga. 635 , 292 S.E.2d 662 (1982).

In choice of law, Georgia follows the "grouping of contacts" or "center of gravity" theory on which law should govern contracts. A-T-O, Inc. v. Stratton & Co., 486 F. Supp. 1323 (N.D. Ga. 1980).

Local law, not lex loci, applicable to remedy on contracts. - As a general principle, the lex loci applies only to the interpretation of contracts, and the remedy on them must be prosecuted according to the laws of the country in which the action is brought. Davis v. DeVaughn, 7 Ga. App. 324 , 66 S.E. 956 (1910); Chamblee v. Colt Co., 31 Ga. App. 34 , 119 S.E. 438 (1923).

This rule applies only to the interpretation of the contract touching its validity, and does not apply to the question of the remedy thereon. Gaffe v. Williams, 194 Ga. 673 , 22 S.E.2d 512 , answer conformed to, 68 Ga. App. 299 , 22 S.E.2d 765 (1942).

Local limitation laws applicable. - Where a suit upon a written contract executed and to be performed in another state is brought in a court of this state, the question whether or not the plaintiff's right of action is barred, being one relating exclusively to the remedy, must be determined with reference to the limitation laws of Georgia. Obear v. First Nat'l Bank, 97 Ga. 587 , 25 S.E. 335 , 33 L.R.A. 384 (1895).

While the validity and form of a contract executed and to be performed in another state must be determined by the laws of that state, yet when suit is brought thereon in a Georgia court, the limitation statutes of Georgia must be applied. Gaffe v. Williams, 194 Ga. 673 , 22 S.E.2d 512 , answer conformed to, 68 Ga. App. 299 , 22 S.E.2d 765 (1942).

Where parties contemplate another place of performance, latter laws preferred. - The place where the contract is entered into is not to be exclusively considered, if the parties had in contemplation another place at the time of the contract, the laws of the latter will be preferred in the construction of the contract. Dunn v. Welsh, 62 Ga. 241 (1879).

Contracts are to be governed as to their nature, validity, and interpretation by the law of the place where they were made, except where it appears from the contract that it is to be performed in a state other than that in which it was made, in which case the laws of that sister state will be applied in the enforcement of any contract to be there performed, so long as such laws do not conflict with the statute, powers, or rights of the state wherein it was executed and sought to be enforced. Tillman v. Gibson, 44 Ga. App. 440 , 161 S.E. 630 (1931).

Contract's construction governed by lex loci, unless intended to have effect within Georgia. - The construction of a contract is to be governed by the law of the place of its making, unless it shall appear that the writing or contract is intended to have effect principally within the State of Georgia. Old Hickory Prods. Co. v. Hickory Specialties, Inc., 366 F. Supp. 913 (N.D. Ga. 1973).

Existing laws part of contract. - The laws which exist at the time and place of the making of a contract enter into and form a part of it. West End & A. St. R.R. v. Atlanta St. R.R., 49 Ga. 151 (1873).

Courts presume common law in force in foreign state. - In the absence of allegations as to what the law of a foreign state is, our courts will presume that the common law is of force in that state. Selma, R. & D.R.R. v. Lacy, 43 Ga. 461 (1871).

Common law determined by looking at Georgia case law. - Georgia courts then go through a two-step process: (1) in the absence of pleading and proof of foreign law, the courts presume that the common law is in effect in the foreign state; and (2) in determining what this "presumed" common law is, the Georgia courts, rather than looking to the foreign case law, look to Georgia case law. Budget Rent-A-Car Corp. v. Fein, 342 F.2d 509 (5th Cir. 1965).

Local case law consulted to interpret foreign statute where no applicable statute. - The case law of the locus will be consulted only when it is interpretive of a foreign statute and where there is no applicable foreign statute. Budget Rent-A-Car Corp. v. Fein, 342 F.2d 509 (5th Cir. 1965).

Foreign contract occupies foreign legal status, but foreign law must be put in evidence. - A contract made and to be performed in another state will be enforced by the courts of this state according to the legal status it would occupy in that state. But the law of that state must be put in evidence before it can be applied in this state. Champion v. Wilson & Co., 64 Ga. 184 (1879).

Specific Illustrations

When note is made in another state, payable there, it is governed by foreign law. Goodrich v. Williams, 50 Ga. 425 (1873).

Note signed in one state and accepted in other made in other. - Where a note is signed in one state, but is not completed until accepted in another state, it is made in that other state. Peretzman v. Borochoff, 58 Ga. App. 838 , 200 S.E. 331 (1938).

Note made upon Sunday not enforced. - As the laws of this state formerly forbid any transaction of any business, trade, or calling on Sunday, a note made upon that day, in pursuance of trade or business, will not be enforced by the courts of this state under the laws of this state, as such a contract is void. Hill v. Wilker, 41 Ga. 449 , 5 Am. R. 540 (1871).

Foreign judgment on foreign note conclusive. - Where a judgment was obtained in a foreign state on a note signed in that state, the judgment is conclusive in a subsequent suit commenced in Georgia by attachment, as to the indebtedness of the defendants. Hope v. First Nat'l Bank, 142 Ga. 310 , 82 S.E. 929 (1914).

Foreign arbitration agreement's validity and construction depends on foreign law. - An agreement for arbitration being made in another state, its validity and construction in the courts of Georgia depend on the laws of that state. Green v. East Tenn. & Ga. R.R., 37 Ga. 456 (1867).

Shipping contract's validity, form, and effect determined by state where made and performed. - If goods are shipped in one state on a through contract, to be transported by a common carrier and delivered in another (omitting any question of public policy), the general rule is, in the absence of anything to show a contrary intent, the validity, form, and effect of the contract will be determined by the laws of the state where the contract was made and partly to be performed. Southern Express Co. v. Hanaw, 134 Ga. 445 , 67 S.E. 944 , 137 Am. St. R. 227 (1910).

Validity and effect of foreign, oral child custody contract determined by foreign law. - Where the defendants in a habeas corpus proceeding relied on an oral contract as and for their right to have and retain custody and care of a child, which contract was made with the plaintiffs while all of them resided in another state, the validity and effect of the contract must be determined by the laws of that state, especially since the parties did not contemplate performance of the contract elsewhere. Rodale v. Grimes, 211 Ga. 50 , 84 S.E.2d 68 (1954).

Foreign assignments of local assets contravening state law or policy not regarded. - The courts of Georgia will not regard an assignment made in another state which, as to assets here, contravenes the law or declared public policy of this state. S. Stricker & Co. v. Tinkham, 35 Ga. 176 , 89 Am. Dec. 280 (1866); Miller v. Kernaghan, 56 Ga. 155 (1876); Birdseye v. Underhill, 82 Ga. 142 , 7 S.E. 863 , 14 Am. St. R. 142 , 2 L.R.A. 99 (1888).

Georgia courts refuse to recognize or enforce any gambling or wagering contract. - Georgia courts regard statutes declaring gambling contracts and transactions illegal or void as embodying a distinctive public policy which requires the courts of this state to refuse to recognize or enforce any contract or transaction in violation of their terms, even though such contract or transaction may have had its situs outside the Georgia forum, by the laws of which situs it is valid, and therefore does not come within the direct operation of the Georgia statutes. The practical result of this view is that a gambling or wagering contract, in order to be upheld or enforced, must be valid both by its proper law - that is, by the law of its situs - and by the law of Georgia. Gulf Collateral, Inc. v. Morgan, 415 F. Supp. 319 (S.D. Ga. 1976).

Lex fori governs remedy in suit to enforce surety's contract. - The lex fori, and not the lex loci, governs as to the remedy in the courts of this state in a suit to enforce the performance of a contract made in another state against a surety thereon. Toomer v. Dickerson, 37 Ga. 428 (1867).

Manner of determining materiality of representations in insurance contract controlled by lex fori. - The materiality of representations made by the insured in the insured's application, under the laws of Georgia, is a question for the jury to decide. The manner in which this question shall be determined, being a matter affecting the remedy only, and not the validity, form, or effect of the contract, is to be controlled by the lex fori, and not by the lex loci contractus. Massachusetts Benefit Life Ass'n v. Robinson, 104 Ga. 256 , 30 S.E. 918 , 42 L.R.A. 261 (1898).

Alabama statute of limitations is not applied in Georgia to a note made in Alabama. Thomas v. Clarkson, 125 Ga. 72 , 54 S.E. 77 , 6 L.R.A. (n.s.) 658 (1906).

Law of state where contract performed governs interest rate. - On contracts made in one state, to be performed in another, if they bear interest, the law of the state where they are to be performed governs the rate of interest to be paid. Thomas v. Clarkson, 125 Ga. 72 , 54 S.E. 77 , 6 L.R.A. (n.s.) 658 (1906).

If no foreign usury law, common law, as construed in this state, governs. - Where a promissory note is both executed and to be performed in another state, in an attack by the maker upon the note for usury brought in this state, where the laws of the foreign state regulating interest charges and usury do not appear, the common law will be presumed to be there in force, and the right to collect interest in such a suit, unless contrary to the public policy or specific statutes of this state, will be governed by the common law as it has been construed and applied in this state. Folsom v. Continental Adjustment Corp., 48 Ga. App. 435 , 172 S.E. 833 (1934).

Contract between foreign manufacturer and Georgia dealer is Georgia contract. - A contract between a foreign manufacturer and a Georgia dealer, whereby the former was to ship goods to the dealer, was a Georgia, and not a foreign contract, and it must be executed in accordance with the laws of Georgia to be valid there against the trustee of the dealer for bankruptcy. In re Bondurant Hdwe. Co., 231 F. 247 (N.D. Ga. 1916).

Whether sale within Georgia securities provisions' meaning occurred in Georgia is decided on basic principles. Allen v. Smith & Medford, Inc., 129 Ga. App. 538 , 199 S.E.2d 876 (1973).

Situs of a debt follows the creditor, and where the debtor and creditor reside in different states, the law of the domicile of the creditor prevails. Birdseye v. Underhill, 82 Ga. 142 , 7 S.E. 863 , 14 Am. St. R. 142 , 2 L.R.A. 99 (1888).

Character of foreign instrument conveying property in this state determined by local law. - Where an instrument is executed and payable in a foreign state by parties all residing in that state, purporting to convey certain standing timber in this state to one of the parties to the contract, the law of the place where the property is situated (the lex loci rei sitae) controls, in order to determine the character of the instrument, whether it is a deed to secure a debt or whether it is a mortgage. Sims v. Jones, 158 Ga. 384 , 123 S.E. 614 (1924).

Wills

Will of land is governed by the lex loci. Key v. Harlan, 52 Ga. 476 (1874); Mechanics' & Traders' Bank v. Harrison, 68 Ga. 463 (1882); Guerard v. Guerard, 73 Ga. 506 (1884).

Wills of personalty are governed by the party's domicile. Latine v. Clements, 3 Ga. 426 (1874); Grote v. Pace, 71 Ga. 231 (1883).

Foreign will conveying both realty and personalty admitted to probate. - A will conveying both realty and personalty, executed in a foreign state according to its laws and there admitted to probate, may in like manner be admitted to probate in this state upon production of an exemplification of the probate proceedings duly certified, notwithstanding the will may not have been executed in conformity to the laws of this state. Such an instrument, however, is not a good will insofar as it attempts a devise of realty located in this state. Knight v. Wheedon, 104 Ga. 309 , 30 S.E. 794 (1898).

Will probated in foreign state, treated as valid bequest of personalty. - Where a will bequeathing realty and personalty was executed according to the law of the state where the testator resided, and was duly probated in that state, it may be treated in this state as a valid bequest of the personalty, although it was not attested by as many witnesses as required by the law of Georgia. Fraser v. Rummele, 195 Ga. 839 , 25 S.E.2d 662 (1943).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur. 2d. - 16 Am. Jur. 2d, Conflict of Laws, §§ 48, 50, 52, 70, 78 et seq.

C.J.S. - 15A C.J.S., Conflict of Laws, §§ 1 et seq., 6 et seq., 21 et seq., 29 et seq. 94 C.J.S., Wills, § 219 et seq.

ALR. - Conflict of laws as to capacity of married women to contract, 18 A.L.R. 1516 ; 71 A.L.R. 744 .

Enforcing foreign contract, valid where made for sale of intoxicating liquor, 49 A.L.R. 1002 .

Inhibition by decree of divorce or statute of state or country in which it is granted, against remarriage, as affecting a marriage celebrated in another state or country, 51 A.L.R. 325 .

Applicability to contracts made or to be performed in another state or country, of a statute of the forum permitting person injured to maintain action directly against indemnity insurer, 54 A.L.R. 515 ; 120 A.L.R. 855 .

Law of place of performance, other than that of place where contract is made and transportation commences, as the governing law of carrier's contract, 72 A.L.R. 250 .

Conflict of laws as to character, form, and nature of action that may be brought upon a foreign contract, 74 A.L.R. 1331 .

Law of the forum as governing the right to and rate of interest as damages for delay in payment of money or discharge of other obligations, 78 A.L.R. 1047 .

Conflict of laws as regards rights of creditors in respect of proceeds of life insurance, 79 A.L.R. 809 .

Action in one state or country on bond given pursuant to statute of another, 85 A.L.R. 847 .

Conflict of laws as to conditional sale of chattels, 87 A.L.R. 1308 ; 13 A.L.R.2d 1312.

Lex loci or lex fori as the governing law as to whether the case or question is to be submitted to the jury or determined by the court, 89 A.L.R. 1278 ; 149 A.L.R. 775 .

Conflict of laws as regards title to commercial paper and right of holder to enforce it as against the drawer or primary obligor, 95 A.L.R. 658 .

Conflict of laws as to whether an instrument is to be regarded as one under seal and as to effect of seal, 109 A.L.R. 479 .

Validity and effect of stipulation in contract to effect that it shall be governed by law of particular state which is neither place where contract is made nor place where it is to be performed, 112 A.L.R. 124 ; 16 A.L.R.4th 967.

Full faith and credit provision as affecting insurance contracts, 119 A.L.R. 483 ; 173 A.L.R. 1138 .

Conflict of laws as to usury, 125 A.L.R. 482 .

Conflict of laws as to chattel mortgages and conditional sales of chattels, 148 A.L.R. 375 ; 13 A.L.R.2d 1312.

Conflict of laws as to exercise of power of appointment, 150 A.L.R. 519 .

Conflict of laws as regards brokerage contracts, 159 A.L.R. 266 .

Governing law as regards presumption and burden of proof, 168 A.L.R. 191 .

Law of state where ticket was purchased, rather than law of state where accident occurred, as governing in action against carrier for death of passenger, 13 A.L.R.2d 650.

Law governing validity and construction of, and rights and obligations arising under, a lease of real property, 15 A.L.R.2d 1199.

What law governs validity, effect, and construction of separation or property settlement agreements, 18 A.L.R.2d 760.

Conflict of laws as to partnership matters, 29 A.L.R.2d 295.

Conflict of laws as to clauses in contract for carriage of passengers limiting carrier's liability for injury or death, or time within which action may be brought, 30 A.L.R.2d 1398.

Conflict of laws as to elements and measure of damages recoverable for breach of contract, 50 A.L.R.2d 227.

What law governs in determining whether facts and circumstances operate to terminate, breach, rescind, or repudiate a contract, 50 A.L.R.2d 254.

Enforceability of provision in agreement for attorney's fees, valid in state of its execution or performance, but invalid under law of forum, 54 A.L.R.2d 1053.

Conflict of laws as to usage and custom, with respect to interpretation or performance of a contract, 60 A.L.R.2d 467.

What law governs employee's right to damages for wrongful discharge, 61 A.L.R.2d 917.

What law governs as to proper party plaintiff in contract action, 62 A.L.R.2d 486.

Conflict of laws as to Sunday contracts, 67 A.L.R.2d 694.

Conflict of laws as to group insurance, 72 A.L.R.2d 695.

Conflict of laws as to contract to adopt, 81 A.L.R.2d 1128.

What law governs validity and enforceability of contract made for support of illegitimate child, 87 A.L.R.2d 1306.

Choice of law in construction of insurance policy originally governed by law of one state as affected by modification, renewal, exchange, replacement, or reinstatement in different state, 3 A.L.R.3d 646.

Conflict of laws as to application of statute proscribing or limiting availability of action for deficiency after sale of collateral real estate, 44 A.L.R.3d 922.

Statute of frauds and conflict of laws, 47 A.L.R.3d 137.

Conflict of laws: what law governs validity and construction of written guaranty, 72 A.L.R.3d 1180.

Choice of law as to applicable statute of limitations in contract actions, 78 A.L.R.3d 639.

Choice of law as to application of comparative negligence doctrine, 86 A.L.R.3d 1206.

Conflict of laws as to validity and effect of arbitration provision in contract for purchase or sale of goods, products, or services, 95 A.L.R.3d 1145.

1-3-11. Local referenda on abolishing offices or shortening or lengthening term.

No office to which a person has been elected shall be abolished nor the term of the office shortened or lengthened by local or special Act during the term for which such person was elected unless the same shall be approved by the people of the jurisdiction affected in a referendum on the question.

(Code 1981, § 1-3-11 , enacted by Ga. L. 1983, p. 685, § 1.)

Editor's notes. - This Code section continues in effect a similar provision which was contained in Art. III, Sec. VII, Para. IX of the Constitution of Georgia of 1976.

Law reviews. - For annual survey of local government law, see 58 Mercer L. Rev. 267 (2006).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Editor's notes. - In light of the similarity of the statutory provisions, decisions under former Art. III, Sec. VII, Para. IX of the Constitution of Georgia of 1976 are included in the annotations for this Code section.

Local deannexation statute that included the area of the city in which the mayor resided, making the mayor ineligible to hold office, did not violate O.C.G.A. § 1-3-11 because it neither abolished the office of mayor nor shortened nor lengthened the term of office. Lee v. City of Villa Rica, 264 Ga. 606 , 449 S.E.2d 295 (1994).

Power of the General Assembly. - Provision prohibiting the abolishing of elective office during term without a referendum submitted to the people of the area affected may not be extended by implication to place a restraint upon the general power of the General Assembly to create or abolish the charters of municipal corporations. Mountain View v. Clayton County, 242 Ga. 163 , 249 S.E.2d 541 (1978).

Change in mayor's duties. - Because the legislature, at the request of a city council, passed legislation authorizing the city to change its form of government from a strong mayor/weak council system to a weak mayor/strong council system employing a city manager, this did not violate O.C.G.A. § 1-3-11 , as the mayor's office continued to exist, albeit with largely ceremonial duties; the mayor's duties could be altered as long as the remaining duties were appropriate to the office, which they were. Griffin v. City Council, 279 Ga. 835 , 621 S.E.2d 734 (2005).

Referendum not required. - Because the legislature, at the request of a city council, passed legislation authorizing the city to change its form of government from a strong mayor/weak council system to a weak mayor/strong council system employing a city manager, no referendum was required under O.C.G.A. § 1-3-11 because the mayor's office was not abolished. Griffin v. City Council, 279 Ga. 835 , 621 S.E.2d 734 (2005).

Referendum improper where voters not informed that bill shortened member's term. - Referendum changing the number of members on a board of education did not comply with O.C.G.A. § 1-3-11 because the voters were not informed that approval of the bill would shorten a board member's term by two years, but, instead, the bill and notice of intention to introduce local legislation incorrectly stated that it would provide for the continuation in office of current members. Burton-Callaway v. Carroll County Bd. of Elections, 279 Ga. 590 , 619 S.E.2d 634 (2005).

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Local law cannot extend tenure in office of an elected official who would otherwise immediately vacate that office when qualifying to run for another elected position. 2000 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 2000-3.

CHAPTER 4 HOLIDAYS AND OBSERVANCES

Sec.

Cross references. - Designation of Retired Teachers' Day, § 20-1-6 .

Editor's notes. - By resolution (see Ga. L. 1982, p. 1317), the General Assembly declared its support for the establishment of the third week of November every year as "Georgia Motor Vehicle Safety Week."

By resolution (see Ga. L. 1982, p. 1319), the General Assembly designated the second Saturday in May of each year as "Armadillo Olympics Day" in Georgia.

By resolution (Ga. L. 1984, p. 1277), the General Assembly designated 1984 as "The Year of the Disabled Voter in Georgia."

By resolution (Ga. L. 1985, p. 256), the General Assembly designated the week beginning with the first Sunday of June each year as "Garden Week."

By resolution (Ga. L. 1990, p. 1732), the General Assembly created the Georgia 1992 Commission, to be abolished December 31, 1992.

1-4-1. Public and legal holidays; leave for observance of religious holidays not specifically provided for.

  1. The State of Georgia shall recognize and observe as public and legal holidays:
    1. All days which have been designated as of January 1, 1984, as public and legal holidays by the federal government; and
    2. All other days designated and proclaimed by the Governor as public and legal holidays or as days of fasting and prayer or other religious observance. In such designation, the Governor shall include at least one of the following dates: January 19, April 26, or June 3, or a suitable date in lieu thereof to commemorate the event or events now observed by such dates.
  2. The Governor shall close all state offices and facilities a minimum of 12 days throughout the year and not more than 12 days in observance of the public and legal holidays and other days set forth in subsection (a) of this Code section and shall specify the days state offices and facilities shall be closed for such observances.
  3. Employees of any state department or agency shall, upon request to their appointing authority or his or her designee at least seven days in advance, be given priority consideration for time away from work for observance of religious holy days not otherwise provided for in this Code section. Any paid leave time for such religious holy day observance shall be charged to accrued compensatory leave or accrued annual leave credits available to the employee at the time of the holy day observance. No employee may claim priority consideration for more than three work days each calendar year. A request by an employee for time away from work to observe a religious holy day shall not be denied unless the employee has inadequate accrued compensatory or annual leave credits to cover such period of absence or the duties performed by the employee are urgently required and the employee is the only person available who can perform the duties as determined by the appointing authority or his or her designee. The State Personnel Board shall provide by rule and regulation a procedure to be followed by agencies and departments in the granting of such holy days.

    (Laws 1850, Cobb's 1851 Digest, p. 522; Code 1863, § 2733; Code 1868, § 2741; Ga. L. 1870, p. 69, § 1; Ga. L. 1871-72, p. 23, § 1; Code 1873, § 2783; Ga. L. 1874, p. 19, § 1; Code 1882, § 2783; Ga. L. 1889, p. 72, §§ 1, 2; Ga. L. 1893, p. 115, § 1; Ga. L. 1894, p. 47, § 1; Civil Code 1895, § 3692; Ga. L. 1897, p. 119, § 1; Civil Code 1910, § 4284; Ga. L. 1929, p. 211, § 1; Code 1933, § 14-1808; Ga. L. 1935, p. 350, § 1; Ga. L. 1943, p. 331, § 1; Ga. L. 1945, p. 123, § 1; Ga. L. 1968, p. 986, § 1; Ga. L. 1969, p. 9, § 1; Ga. L. 1972, p. 363, § 1; Ga. L. 1975, p. 368, § 1; Ga. L. 1982, p. 986, §§ 1, 2; Ga. L. 1984, p. 22, § 1; Ga. L. 1984, p. 1274, § 1; Ga. L. 2009, p. 745, § 1/SB 97; Ga. L. 2012, p. 446, § 2-1/HB 642; Ga. L. 2016, p. 864, § 1/HB 737.)

Cross references. - Distribution of federal funds; combined purchase of supplies and equipment; minimum school year; summer school programs; year-round operation, § 20-2-168 .

Place and time of holding probate court, § 15-9-82 .

State Merit System of Personnel Administration, T. 45, C. 20.

Editor's notes. - As of January 1, 1984, the days which have been "designated" as public and legal holidays by the federal government (see 5 U.S.C. § 6103(a), as amended by P.L. 98-144) are as follows: New Year's Day; Birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr.; Washington's Birthday; Memorial Day; Independence Day; Labor Day; Columbus Day; Veterans' Day; Thanksgiving Day; and Christmas Day. See subsection (b) of this Code section for powers of Governor to specify the days state offices and facilities shall be closed for observance of public and legal holidays.

Ga. L. 2012, p. 446, § 3-1/HB 642, not codified by the General Assembly, provides that: "Personnel, equipment, and facilities that were assigned to the State Personnel Administration as of June 30, 2012, shall be transferred to the Department of Administrative Services on the effective date of this Act." This Act became effective July 1, 2012.

Ga. L. 2012, p. 446, § 3-2/HB 642, not codified by the General Assembly, provides that: "Appropriations for functions which are transferred by this Act may be transferred as provided in Code Section 45-12-90."

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

While January 1 is legal holiday, it is not dies non juridicus (a nonjudicial day). Parker v. Mayor of Savannah, 216 Ga. 210 , 115 S.E.2d 555 (1960).

An advertisement which appeared on January 1, 1960, was valid; and, accordingly, the house bill which extended the city's corporate limits was properly advertised as required by the Constitution. Parker v. Mayor of Savannah, 216 Ga. 210 , 115 S.E.2d 555 (1960).

Labor Day not dies non juridicus. - While this section establishes the first Monday in September as a public and legal holiday, it does not by its terms declare Labor Day dies non juridicus. Moore v. Dearing, 216 Ga. 596 , 118 S.E.2d 366 (1961).

Section does not make Labor Day probate invalid. Moore v. Dearing, 216 Ga. 596 , 118 S.E.2d 366 (1961).

Thanksgiving Day and day after Thanksgiving. - Superior court improperly dismissed as untimely appellant city's petition for a writ of certiorari challenging a civil service board's decision, as the petition was timely filed for purposes of O.C.G.A. § 5-4-6(a) since: (1) the last day to file the petition fell on Thanksgiving Day; (2) the Friday after Thanksgiving day, like Thanksgiving day, was a legal holiday as set forth in O.C.G.A. § 1-4-1 ; and (3) the petition was filed on the very next business day, as allowed by O.C.G.A. § 1-3-1(d)(3). City of Atlanta v. Hector, 256 Ga. App. 665 , 569 S.E.2d 600 (2002).

No relief for late filed notice. - Father's notice of appeal was not timely, filed more than 30 days after the final order was entered by the trial court, and O.C.G.A. § 1-4-1 provided no relief to the father because the day in question was not a federal holiday or declared a public and legal holiday by the Governor of Georgia such that the time for filing the notice would have been extended. Smith v. McTaggart, 343 Ga. App. 144 , 806 S.E.2d 229 (2017).

Cited in Herrin v. Herrin, 224 Ga. 579 , 163 S.E.2d 713 (1968); Jesup Carpet Factory Outlet, Inc. v. Ken Carpets of LaGrange, Inc., 142 Ga. App. 301 , 235 S.E.2d 684 (1977); Ausburn v. Anthony, 173 Ga. App. 505 , 326 S.E.2d 588 (1985); Dental One Assocs. v. JKR Realty Assocs., 228 Ga. App. 307 , 491 S.E.2d 414 (1997); McKenzie v. State, 250 Ga. App. 277 , 549 S.E.2d 774 (2001); Morrell v. W. Servs., LLC, 291 Ga. App. 369 , 662 S.E.2d 215 (2008).

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Saturdays are not regarded per se as legal holidays. 1971 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 71-56.

Georgia Day is not a legal holiday. 1976 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 76-112.

Sunday in this state is a nonjudicial day (dies non juridicus). 1980 Op. Att'y Gen. No. U80-39.

Legal holidays are not dies non juridicus. 1980 Op. Att'y Gen. No. U80-39.

Retail stores are not required to close during or on part of any legal holiday, the entire matter of holiday observance of retail stores seems to be a matter of custom and good taste without any state law other than the above laws which merely designate the legal holiday. 1957 Op. Att'y Gen. p. 204.

State salaried employee who works during legal holiday not entitled to pay. - A salaried employee of the state, classified under the state merit system, who has worked during a legal and public holiday and is separated or resigns before the executive authorizes a compensatory nonwork day, is not entitled to an extra day's pay. 1969 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 69-191.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur. 2d. - 73 Am. Jur. 2d, Sundays and Holidays, § 3 et seq.

C.J.S. - 40 C.J.S., Holidays, § 2 et seq.

ALR. - Right of public officers or employees as regards vacations and holidays, 134 A.L.R. 195 .

1-4-2. Religious holidays.

The only days to be declared, treated, and considered as religious holidays shall be the first day of each week, called Sunday.

(Ga. L. 1943, p. 331, § 2.)

Cross references. - Operation of motion picture theaters and holding of athletic events, games, and contests on Sunday, § 10-1-550 et seq.

Requirement that businesses and industries operating on either Saturday or Sunday accommodate religious, social, and physical needs of employees on those days, § 10-1-573 .

Penalty for discharging firearm on Sunday, § 16-11-105 .

Prohibition against requiring inmates to do nonessential work on Sunday, § 42-5-40 .

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Sunday, a religious holiday, is dies non juridicus (a nonjudicial day). Parker v. Mayor of Savannah, 216 Ga. 210 , 115 S.E.2d 555 (1960).

Cited in Cain v. Lumpkin County, 229 Ga. 274 , 190 S.E.2d 910 (1972); In re Estate of Dasher, 259 Ga. App. 201 , 575 S.E.2d 921 (2002).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur. 2d. - 73 Am. Jur. 2d, Sundays and Holidays, §§ 1, 2, 4, 11 et seq.

C.J.S. - 83 C.J.S., Sunday, §§ 1, 3.

ALR. - Power of municipal corporation to legislate as to Sunday observance, 37 A.L.R. 575 .

1-4-3. American History Month.

  1. The State of Georgia recognizes the importance to the citizens of this state of the principles upon which the United States of America was founded and of an understanding of the history of our nation. To encourage the study of American history by the citizens of this state, the month of February of each year is designated as "American History Month" in Georgia. The citizens of this state are encouraged to observe "American History Month" with appropriate observances and programs.
  2. The month of February of each year is also designated as Georgia History Month in special tribute to the founders, builders, and preservers of this state.

    (Ga. L. 1963, p. 386, § 1; Ga. L. 1974, p. 329, § 1.)

1-4-4. Wildflower Week.

The fourth week in the month of March of each year is declared to be "Wildflower Week" in Georgia.

(Ga. L. 1981, p. 1849.)

1-4-5. Bird Day.

The second Thursday in October of each year is declared to be "Bird Day" in Georgia.

(Ga. L. 1981, p. 1849.)

1-4-6. Law Enforcement Officer Appreciation Day.

The second Monday in February of each year is declared to be "Law Enforcement Officer Appreciation Day" in Georgia.

(Code 1981, § 1-4-6 , enacted by Ga. L. 1985, p. 658, § 1.)

1-4-7. Peace Officer Memorial Day; Police Week.

May 15 of each year is declared to be "Peace Officer Memorial Day" and the calendar week in which it falls is declared as "Police Week."

(Code 1981, § 1-4-7 , enacted by Ga. L. 1987, p. 869, § 1.)

1-4-8. Children's Day.

The first Sunday in October of each year, beginning in 1990, is declared to be "Children's Day" in Georgia.

(Code 1981, § 1-4-8 , enacted by Ga. L. 1990, p. 175, § 1.)

1-4-9. Former Prisoners of War Recognition Day.

The day of April 9 of each year is designated as "Former Prisoners of War Recognition Day" in Georgia.

(Code 1981, § 1-4-9 , enacted by Ga. L. 1990, p. 1061, § 1.)

Code Commission notes. - Pursuant to Code Section 28-9-5, in 1990, this Code Section enacted as Code Section 1-4-8 was redesignated as Code Section 1-4-9.

1-4-10. Girls and Women in Sports Day.

The first Thursday in February of each year is designated as "Girls and Women in Sports Day" in Georgia.

(Code 1981, § 1-4-10 , enacted by Ga. L. 1991, p. 788, § 1.)

1-4-11. Clean Water Week.

The third week in October of each year is designated and shall be observed as "Clean Water Week" in Georgia.

(Code 1981, § 1-4-11 , enacted by Ga. L. 1994, p. 1403, § 1.)

1-4-12. Firefighter Appreciation Day.

The first Tuesday in February of each year is designated as "Firefighter Appreciation Day" in Georgia.

(Code 1981, § 1-4-12 , enacted by Ga. L. 1996, p. 836, § 1.)

1-4-13. Bill of Rights Day.

  1. The State of Georgia recognizes the first ten amendments to the Constitution of the United States as vitally important in articulating and ensuring fundamental human rights. These first ten amendments, known collectively as the Bill of Rights, were ratified on December 15, 1791.
  2. To affirm the fundamental freedoms embodied in the Bill of Rights, celebrate the anniversary of ratification, and commemorate the sacrifices made to preserve these essential rights, December 15 of each year is designated "Bill of Rights Day" in Georgia. The citizens of this state are encouraged to observe the day by reflecting upon the meaning and importance of the Bill of Rights. (Code 1981, § 1-4-13 , enacted by Ga. L. 1998, p. 743, § 1.)

Cross references. - Bill of Rights, see the Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

Code Commission notes. - Both Ga. L. 1998, p. 743, § 1 and Ga. L. 1998, p. 1014, § 1 enacted Code Section 1-4-13. Pursuant to Code Section 28-9-5, in 1998, Code Section 1-4-13 as enacted by Ga. L. 1998, p. 1014, § 1 was redesignated as Code Section 1-4-14.

1-4-14. Home Education Week.

The first week in February of each year is declared to be "Home Education Week" in Georgia.

(Code 1981, § 1-4-14 , enacted by Ga. L. 1998, p. 1014, § 1.)

Cross references. - School attendance and home study programs, § 20-2-690 et seq.

Code Commission notes. - Pursuant to Code Section 28-9-5, in 1998, this Code section, enacted by Ga. L. 1998, p. 1014 as Code Section 1-4-13, was redesignated as Code Section 1-4-14.

1-4-15. Designation of "Bill Elliott Day."

  1. The General Assembly finds that a Georgia family's proud tradition of racing began in Dawsonville, Georgia, under the tutelage and guiding hand of George Elliott.  George's young son Bill began to demonstrate at an early age a natural skill and competitive racing instinct at Dixie Speedway in Woodstock, and in 1976, at the tender age of 20, Bill Elliott entered his first Winston Cup race and launched a career that would span decades. Awesome Bill from Dawsonville, a modest, unassuming, and unpretentious man, has become a household name in NASCAR racing and has been selected Most Popular Driver an unprecedented 16 times, Georgia Professional Athlete of the Year twice, National Motorsports Driver of the Year 14 times, and in 1998, was inducted into the Georgia Sports Hall of Fame. It is virtually impossible to list all of the honors and awards Million Dollar Bill has garnered over his incandescent career, but perhaps his most acclaimed accomplishment is his support, love, and respect from racing fans.  He has given unstintingly of his time, talents, energy, and financial resources to numerous charities including the Special Olympics, the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, and the Make-A-Wish Foundation and it is abundantly fitting and proper that this extraordinary Georgian be recognized in a special and lasting manner.
  2. The members of the General Assembly  commend Bill Elliott for his over 30 years of outstanding contributions to the sport of racing and designate October 8 of each year as "Bill Elliott Day" in Georgia. (Code 1981, § 1-4-15 , enacted by Ga. L. 2005, p. 1159, § .1/SB 168; Ga. L. 2006, p. 72, § 1/SB 465.)

1-4-15.1. Designation of "Ronald Reagan Day."

  1. The General Assembly recognizes that:
    1. President Ronald Wilson Reagan, a man of humble background, worked throughout his life serving freedom and advancing the public good, having been employed as an entertainer, Union leader, corporate spokesman, Governor of California, and President of the United States;
    2. Ronald Reagan served with honor and distinction for two terms as the fortieth President of the United States of America, and in his reelection he earned the confidence of three-fifths of the electorate and was victorious in 49 of the 50 states in the general election, a record unsurpassed in the history of American presidential elections;
    3. During Mr. Reagan's presidency he worked in a bipartisan manner to enact his bold agenda of restoring accountability and common sense to government which led to an unprecedented economic expansion and opportunity for millions of Americans;
    4. Mr. Reagan's commitment to an active social policy agenda for the nation's children helped lower crime rates and drug use in our neighborhoods;
    5. President Reagan's commitment to our armed forces contributed to the restoration of pride in America, her values and those cherished by the free world, and prepared America's armed forces to meet twenty-first century challenges;
    6. President Reagan's vision of "peace through strength" led to the end of the Cold War and the ultimate demise of the Soviet Union, guaranteeing basic human rights for millions of people; and
    7. February 6, 2005, will be the ninety-fourth anniversary of Ronald Reagan's birth, and the first since his passing.
  2. February 6 of each year is designated "Ronald Reagan Day" in Georgia. (Code 1981, § 1-4-15.1 , enacted by Ga. L. 2006, p. 139, § 1/HB 713; Ga. L. 2007, p. 47, § 1/SB 103.)

Code Commission notes. - Pursuant to Code Section 28-9-5, in 2006, Code Section 1-4-15, as enacted by Ga. L. 2006, p. 139, § 1/HB 713, was redesignated as Code Section 1-4-15.1.

1-4-16. Designation of "Prison Chaplains Appreciation Day."

The fourth Monday in March of each year is designated and shall be observed as "Prison Chaplains Appreciation Day" in all state and private correctional institutions in Georgia.

(Code 1981, § 1-4-16 , enacted by Ga. L. 2006, p. 484, § 1/HB 1292.)

1-4-17. Declaration of "Georgia Day."

The twelfth day of February in each year is declared to be "Georgia Day," as the anniversary of the landing of the first colonists in Georgia under Oglethorpe.

(Code 1981, § 1-4-17 , enacted by Ga. L. 2008, p. 2, § 1/HB 387.)

Editor's notes. - This Code section formerly pertained to the designation of the year of the museum. The former Code section was based on Code 1981, § 1-4-17 , enacted by Ga. L. 2006, p. 720, § 1/SB 195.

Code Commission notes. - Pursuant to Code Section 28-9-5, in 2006, Code Section 1-4-16, as enacted by Ga. L. 2006, p. 720, § 1, was redesignated as Code Section 1-4-17.

Pursuant to Code Section 28-9-5, in 2008, Code Section 1-4-17, as enacted by Ga. L. 2008, p. 563, § 2, was redesignated as Code Section 1-4-18, and Code Section 1-4-17, as enacted by Ga. L. 2008, p. 566, § 2, was redesignated as Code Section 1-4-19.

1-4-18. Designation of "School Bus Drivers Appreciation Day."

The third Monday in October of every year is designated "School Bus Drivers Appreciation Day" in Georgia.

(Code 1981, § 1-4-18 , enacted by Ga. L. 2008, p. 563, § 2/HB 791.)

Code Commission notes. - Pursuant to Code Section 28-9-5, in 2008, Code Section 1-4-17, as enacted by Ga. L. 2008, p. 563, § 2, was redesignated as Code Section 1-4-18.

Editor's notes. - Ga. L. 2008, p. 563, § 1/HB 791, not codified by the General Assembly, provided legislative findings related to the enactment of this Code section.

1-4-19. Designation of "School Bus Safety Week."

The third week in October of every year is designated "School Bus Safety Week" in Georgia.

(Code 1981, § 1-4-19 , enacted by Ga. L. 2008, p. 566, § 2/HB 790.)

Code Commission notes. - Pursuant to Code Section 28-9-5, in 2008, Code Section 1-4-17, as enacted by Ga. L. 2008, p. 566, § 2, was redesignated as Code Section 1-4-19.

Editor's notes. - Ga. L. 2008, p. 566, § 1/HB 790, not codified by the General Assembly, provided legislative findings related to the enactment of this Code section.

1-4-20. Designation of Confederate History and Heritage Month.

  1. The General Assembly hereby finds and determines that tourism is a great economic resource in Georgia; and historical, heritage, and cultural inheritance are among the tourism industry's most popular attractions. Georgia's Confederate heritage, physical artifacts and battle sites, and historic events and persons not only attract visitors, they are potentially of even greater importance and benefit to our state's economy. Increased development of our state's Confederate history and heritage as part of the tourism industry will be enhanced through recognizing, celebrating, and advertising that heritage and history.
  2. The month of April of each year is hereby designated as Confederate History and Heritage Month and shall be set aside to honor, observe, and celebrate the Confederate States of America, its history, those who served in its armed forces and government, and all those millions of its citizens of various races and ethnic groups and religions who contributed in sundry and myriad ways to the cause which they held so dear from its founding on February 4, 1861, in Montgomery, Alabama, until the Confederate ship CSS Shenandoah sailed into Liverpool Harbor and surrendered to British authorities on November 6, 1865.
  3. Officials and departments of state, county, and municipal governments, boards of education, elementary and secondary schools, colleges and universities, businesses, and all citizens are encouraged to participate in programs, displays, and activities that commemorate and honor our shared history and cultural inheritance throughout each April during Confederate History and Heritage Month. (Code 1981, § 1-4-20 , enacted by Ga. L. 2009, p. 207, § 2/SB 27.)

Cross references. - Official Georgia Historical Civil Rights Museum, § 50-3-85 .

1-4-21. Designation of "Purple Heart Day."

  1. August 7 of every year is designated as "Purple Heart Day."
  2. The Governor may annually issue a proclamation designating August 7 as "Purple Heart Day." Public officials, schools, private organizations, and all residents of this state are encouraged to commemorate Purple Heart Day and honor those wounded or killed while serving in any branch of the United States Armed Services. (Code 1981, § 1-4-21 , enacted by Ga. L. 2014, p. 758, § 1/SB 276.)

Cross references. - License plates for veterans awarded Purple Heart, § 40-2-84 .

Purple Heart state designation, § 50-3-86 .

1-4-22. Designation of "Water Professionals Appreciation Day."

The first Monday in May of each year is designated as "Water Professionals Appreciation Day" in Georgia.

(Code 1981, § 1-4-22 , enacted by Ga. L. 2015, p. 108, § 2/SB 119.)

Editor's notes. - Ga. L. 2015, p. 108, § 1/SB119, not codified by the General Assembly, provides: "The General Assembly finds that:

"(1) The Georgia Water Quality Control Act was passed by the Georgia General Assembly and signed into law in 1964 by Governor Carl Sanders;

"(2) At that time, there were 25 communities in Georgia which had no public sewer systems, 40 communities with a sewer system but no treatment facilities, 60 communities with a sewer system but only primary treatment facilities, 50 communities with a sewer system and secondary treatment facilities which were in need of improvement, and 395 industries which had documented untreated or inadequately treated discharges to Georgia's surface waters;

"(3) At the time of passage of the Act, many of Georgia's surface waters were extremely polluted, and serious water quality problems existed all over the State of Georgia;

"(4) The state established the Georgia Water Quality Control Board (later reconstituted as the Georgia Environmental Protection Division as a result of the 1972 Reorganization of State Government under Governor Jimmy Carter), and Governor Sanders appointed R.S. 'Rock' Howard to be the board's executive secretary;

"(5) By the time the Federal Water Quality Control Act was passed in 1972, most of Georgia's industries had been brought into compliance with the initial requirements of the federal Act;

"(6) Over the ensuing four decades, billions of federal, state, and local dollars have been invested in planning, designing, and constructing modern publicly owned wastewater treatment facilities throughout this state;

"(7) Georgia's water professionals are committed to operating these facilities to maintain consistent compliance with extremely stringent standards;

"(8) Both publicly and privately owned facilities have performed so well that they are no longer the most significant threat to Georgia's waters;

"(9) The quality of Georgia's waters has improved dramatically throughout this great state over the years since the passage of the original Act;

"(10) It is imperative that these improvements be sustained while continuing our efforts to educate Georgians of their growing responsibility in the reduction of non-point sources of pollution to Georgia's waters;

"(11) The success that we have experienced thus far and the success that we will have is due to the tremendous dedication and efforts of Georgia's water professionals; and

"(12) It is fitting and proper that these individuals and their efforts be appropriately recognized."

CHAPTER 5 CHANGE OF NAME OF RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITIES, PORT AUTHORITIES, AND INDUSTRIAL AREAS

Sec.

1-5-1. Power of board of directors to change name and style under which an authority operates.

The board of directors of any public authority created by a constitutional amendment, which amendment was continued in force as a part of the 1983 Constitution pursuant to the provisions of subparagraph (d) of Article XI, Section I, Paragraph IV, shall be empowered to change the name and style under which the authority operates by adopting an appropriate resolution by a majority vote at any regular or special meeting of the authority. If the board of directors changes the name and style under which an authority operates in accordance with the provisions of this Code section, such action shall in no way alter or restrict the character or nature of the authority and the authority shall be recognized and declared to be one and the same continuing body corporate and politic with all the powers heretofore or hereafter granted to said authority; and any acts done under the new name and style so adopted shall be for all intents and purposes equally as valid and effective as if done under the original name and style of the authority.

(Code 1981, § 1-5-1 , enacted by Ga. L. 1989, p. 47, § 1.)