Legal Opinion

Johnson v. Arnold

Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided April 14, 1933No. 9544PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtGilbert, J.

It has uniformly been held that “mandamus can not be applied as a remedy to compel an act not authorized by law.” Hannah v. Lovelace-Young Lumber Co., 159 Ga. 859 (127 S. E. 225). “In a suit for mandamus, the duty which the complainant seeks to have enforced must be a duty arising by law, either expressly or by necessary implication; and the law must not only authorize the act to be done, but must require its performance.” Sibley v. Park, 175 Ga. 846 (166 S. E. 212). In the present case the effort is not to interfere with a discretion lawfully exercised by the mayor, or to compel an act not…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Hannah v. Lovelace-Young Lumber Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1925
  2. Hall v. City of MaconSupreme Court of Georgia · 1918
  3. Sibley v. ParkSupreme Court of Georgia · 1932

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Cole v. FosterSupreme Court of Georgia · 1950
  2. Smith v. City Council of AugustaSupreme Court of Georgia · 1948
  3. Board of Regents of University & State Colleges v. FrohmillerArizona Supreme Court · 1949
  4. Wood v. Puritan Chemical Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1934
  5. Palmer v. ClaxtonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1950

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API