City of Marietta v. Kile
Court of Appeals of Georgia
1Opinion of the CourtBroyles, C. J.
1. Where a municipal corporation has jurisdiction to pave its streets and to assess the cost thereof against owners of abutting property, such owners will be estopped from asserting that the paving was not done in compliance with the provisions of the paving ordinance, if they stand by and permit the work to be done without interposing any objection until after the completion of the work and its acceptance by the city authorities. Hall v. Macon, 147 Ga. 704 (2) (95 S. E. 248) ; City of Bainbridge v. Jester, 157 Ga. 505 (3) (121 S. E. 798, 33 A. L. R. 1406) ; Burns v. Atlanta, 148 Ga. 549 (3)…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- City of Atlanta v. HollidaySupreme Court of Georgia · 1895
- Dyer v. MartinSupreme Court of Georgia · 1909
- City of Bainbridge v. JesterSupreme Court of Georgia · 1924
- Raines v. ClaySupreme Court of Georgia · 1926
- Chipstead v. OliverSupreme Court of Georgia · 1912
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Collier v. City of BarnesvilleCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1932