Legal Opinion · Dissent

City of Bainbridge v. Jester

Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided February 14, 1924No. Nos. 3781, 3782Published

1DissentGilbert, J.

I am unable to concur in the ruling made in the third headnote, and am therefore forced to dissent from the judgment of reversal. The trial judge, under the pleadings and the evidence at the hearing for temporary injunction, found that, contrary to the statute under which the city was acting, it sold the bonds at less than par. The statute in question is mandatory, as follows: “Said bonds shall be sold at not less than par, . . or such bonds in the amount that shall be necessary for that purpose may be turned over and delivered to the contractor at par value in payment of the amount due him…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Sanders v. MayorSupreme Court of Georgia · 1914
  2. City of Thomasville v. Thomasville Electric Light & Gas Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1905
  3. Mays v. City of JacksonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1918

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API