Legal Opinion
Hogansville Banking Co. v. City of Hogansville
Supreme Court of Georgia
Decided November 27, 1923No. 3785PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtHines, J.
(After stating the foregoing facts.)
The rulings made in the first, sixth, and seventh headnotes need no further elaboration.
*859We will deal with the rulings made in the other headnotes together. The duties which mandamus will enforce must be such as result from an office, trust, or station. 26 Cyc. 163. It will not lie against a public officer to compel the performance by him of acts which do not come within his official duties. Holtzclaw v. Riley, 113 Ga. 1023 (39 S. E. 425). So it becomes necessayy to determine, in the first place, whether the defendant occupies such official or quasi-official…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- American Railway-Frog Co. v. HavenMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1869
- Central of Georgia Railway Co. v. BrownSupreme Court of Georgia · 1912
- Mayor of Savannah v. State ex rel. GreenSupreme Court of Georgia · 1848
- Young v. HarrisonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1849
- Neal Loan & Banking Co. v. ChastainSupreme Court of Georgia · 1904
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- City of King City v. Community Bank of CentralCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2005
- North Fulton Medical Center, Inc. v. RoachSupreme Court of Georgia · 1995
- Adams v. Town of WestonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1935
- Maddox v. Anchor Duck MillsSupreme Court of Georgia · 1929
- Buckley v. Valley Camp Coal Co.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1963
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.