---
title: Ga. Const. Art. III, Sec. V, Para. IV. Statutes and sections of Code, how amended.
collection: code
id: ga-const:art-iii-sec-v-para-iv
cite_as: Ga. Const. Art. III, Sec. V, Para. IV
canonical_url: https://georgiacommons.org/constitution/ga/art-iii-sec-v-para-iv
md_url: https://georgiacommons.org/constitution/ga/art-iii-sec-v-para-iv.md
text_url: https://georgiacommons.org/constitution/ga/art-iii-sec-v-para-iv/text
source_url: https://www.legis.ga.gov/api/document/docs/default-source/joint-features-document-library/2ga-const-(v2)-2016-pdf.pdf?sfvrsn=f5de823e_0#page=841
date: 2016
status: active
corpus_version: 2025-supplement-89aa39ab3c68
license: CC0-1.0
publisher: Georgia Commons, an independent project of Georgia Civic Data. Not the State of Georgia. Not legal advice.
up: https://georgiacommons.org/constitution/ga/index.md
previous: https://georgiacommons.org/constitution/ga/art-iii-sec-v-para-iii.md
next: https://georgiacommons.org/constitution/ga/art-iii-sec-v-para-v.md
index: https://georgiacommons.org/code/index.md
omitted: notes
omitted_chars: 5954
omitted_url: https://georgiacommons.org/constitution/ga/art-iii-sec-v-para-iv.md?notes=all&start=11377
version: the only printed version
in_force: true
current_through: Including Acts of the 2025 Regular Session of the General Assembly
heading_path: CONSTITUTION OF THE / LEGISLATIVE BRANCH / ENACTMENT OF LAWS
---

# Ga. Const. Art. III, Sec. V, Para. IV. Statutes and sections of Code, how amended.

A constitution provision shown as in force is in force as printed in the volume. A court decision can make a printed provision unenforceable without changing the volume, and the volume does not record that.

No law or section of the Code shall be amended or repealed by mere reference to its title or to the number of the section of the Code; but the amending or repealing Act shall distinctly describe the law or Code section to be amended or repealed as well as the alteration to be made.

## Law Reviews

For article, ‘‘Bill Drafting — Some Guidelines and Pitfalls,’’ see 2 Ga. St. B.J. 181 (1965). For article discussing problems of construction when repeal statutes are subsequently repealed, see 10 Ga. St. B.J. 41 (1973).

For comment on Sams v. Olah, 225 Ga. 497, 169 S.E.2d 790 (1969) as to the constitutionality of the State Bar Act (Art. 2, Ch. 19, T. 15), see 21 Mercer L. Rev. 355 (1969).

## 1976 Constitution.

Art. III, Sec. VII, Para. XII.

## Objectives of Paragraph.

An object of this paragraph is to put legislators and the public who might be affected on guard as to all matters connected with subject matter. Ragans v. Ragans, 200 Ga. 890, 39 S.E.2d 162 (1946); Bienert v. State, 82 Ga. App. 179, 60 S.E.2d 575 (1950) (see Ga. Const. 1983, Art. III, Sec. V, Para. IV).

This paragraph has no reference to Act complete in itself, which does not purport to amend any particular law. Bagwell v. City of Lawrenceville, 94 Ga. 654, 21 S.E. 903 (1894) (see Ga. Const. 1983, Art. III, Sec. V, Para. IV). tutional amendments. Cooney v. Foote, 142 Ga. 647, 83 S.E. 537 (1914) (see Ga. Const. 1983, Art. III, Sec. V, Para. IV).

Paragraph does not apply to Acts passed pursuant thereto. McCall v. Wilkins, 145 Ga. 342, 89 S.E. 219 (1916) (see Ga. Const. 1983, Art. III, Sec. V, Para. IV).

## Paragraph Does Not Apply to consti-Paragraph Does Not Apply to General Tax Acts.

This paragraph does not apply to general tax Acts designed to raise revenue for the purposes of the state government from time to time, and according to changing necessities and exigencies the state may require less revenue or more than theretofore. Fidelity Fruit & Produce Co. v. City of Atlanta, 183 Ga. 698, 189 S.E. 527 (1937) (see Ga. Const. 1983, Art. III, Sec. V, Para. IV).

Act which does not purport to amend or repeal any particular law or section is not within purview of this paragraph. Hines v. Etheridge, 173 Ga. 870, 162 S.E. 113 (1931); Aven v. Steiner Cancer Hosp., 189 Ga. 126, 5 S.E.2d 356 (1939) (see Ga. Const. 1983, Art. III, Sec. V, Para. IV).

Adoption of Code containing Act originally passed in violation of this

## Paragraph Cures the Defect.

McFarland v. Donaldson, 115 Ga. 567, 41 S.E. 1000 (1902); Aultman v. Hodge, 147 Ga. 626, 95 S.E. 297 (1918) (see Ga. Const. 1983, Art. III, Sec. V, Para. IV).

## Parts of Third Act Incorporated.

Where the body of the Act amends the original act by adding a new section which General Consideration (Cont’d) makes certain sections of a third Act part of the Act as amended, this is a sufficient description under this section of the alteration to be made in the Act sought to be amended, and this is so although such third Act and the amending Act became laws on the same day. Holland v. State, 155 Ga. 795, 118 S.E. 203 (1923) (see Ga. Const. 1983, Art. III, Sec. V, Para. IV).

## Effect of Abrogation of Law.

Where an amending Act recites that the old Act as amended shall read in a certain way, such recital as to what the law shall be after the passage of the amended Act abrogates everything in the old law which is not contained therein. Gilbert v. Georgia R.R. & Banking Co., 104 Ga. 412, 30 S.E. 673 (1898).

For effect of repealing a repealing Act, see McCants v. Layfield, 149 Ga. 231, 99 S.E. 877 (1919).

General law may be repealed or modified by another general law, but it cannot be repealed or modified by special or local law. Cheatham v. Palmer, 176 Ga. 227, 167 S.E. 522 (1933).

No requirement of citing effect of

## Legislation on Judicial Decisions.

There is no constitutional nor statutory requirement that the legislature cite decisions of the court which may be changed, modified, or abrogated by legislative enactments. Davis v. State, 204 Ga. 467, 50 S.E.2d 604 (1948).

Cited in Wood v. City of Rome, 172 Ga. 696, 158 S.E. 585 (1931); Buie v. Buie, 175 Ga. 27, 165 S.E. 15 (1932); Terrell v. Forest Park Consol. Sch. Dist., 175 Ga. 88, 165 S.E. 122 (1932); National Fin. Co. v. Citizens Loan & Sav. Co., 184 Ga. 619, 192 S.E. 717 (1937); Shadrick v. Bledsoe, 186 Ga. 345, 198 S.E. 535 (1938); Pierce v. Powell, 188 Ga. 481, 4 S.E.2d 192 (1939); State Bd. of Educ. v. County Bd. of Educ., 190 Ga. 588, 10 S.E.2d 369 (1940); Morris v. City Council, 201 Ga. 666, 40 S.E.2d 710 (1946); Price v. State, 202 Ga. 205, 42 S.E.2d 728 (1947); Glustrom v. State, 206 Ga. 734, 58 S.E.2d 534 (1950); Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Floyd, 214 Ga. 232, 104 S.E.2d 208 (1958); Cavendar v. Evans, 218 Ga. 739, 130 S.E.2d 717 (1963); Burson v. Bishop, 117 Ga. App. 602, 161 S.E.2d 518 (1968); Pye v. State Hwy. Dep’t, 226 Ga. 389, 175 S.E.2d 510 (1970); Mayson v. Davis, 227 Ga. 399, 181 S.E.2d 64 (1971); Perdue v. City Council, 137 Ga. App. 702, 225 S.E.2d 62 (1976); Osborne v. Ridge View Assocs., 238 Ga. 377, 233 S.E.2d 342 (1977); Pendigrass v. Edmonds, 247 Ga. 508, 277 S.E.2d 247 (1981); DOT v. Cochran, 160 Ga. App. 583, 287 S.E.2d 599 (1981); Teachers Retirement Sys. v. City of Atlanta, 249 Ga. 196, 288 S.E.2d 200 (1982).

Sufficiency of Description

This paragraph refers to what is contained in body of the Act, and not to contents of title. Holland v. State, 155 Ga. 795, 118 S.E. 203 (1923); Southwestern R.R. v. Wright, 156 Ga. 1, 118 S.E. 552 (1923) (see Ga. Const. 1983, Art. III, Sec. V, Para. IV).

## Basic Requirement of Paragraph.

All that this paragraph requires is that the Act amended or repealed should be identified in some other way than by mere reference to its title. Welborne v. State, 114 Ga. 793, 40 S.E. 857 (1902); Fountain v. Ragan-Malone Co., 141 Ga. 58, 80 S.E. 306 (1913) (see Ga. Const. 1983, Art. III, Sec. V, Para. IV).

Mere reference to the Code section to be affected is insufficient, and a reasonably clear and concise description of the subject matter of the affected statute is necessary. Mead Corp. v. Collins, 258 Ga. 239, 367 S.E.2d 790 (1988).

This paragraph is not complied with if only reference to law to be amended or repealed is its title or number of section. Ragans v. Ragans, 200 Ga. 890, 39 S.E.2d 162 (1946) (see Ga. Const. 1983, Art. III, Sec. V, Para. IV).

Title and date of approval of Act

## Recited.

Under this paragraph, an Act of the legislature can be amended or repealed by a recital of its title and the date of its approval. Adam v. Wright, 84 Ga. 720, 11 S.E. 893 (1890); Fullington v. Williams, 98 Ga. 807, 27 S.E. 183 (1896); Town of Maysville v. Smith, 132 Ga. 316, 64 S.E. 131 (1909); Holland v. State, 155 Ga. 795, 118 S.E. 203 (1923) (see Ga. Const. 1983, Art. III, Sec. V, Para. IV). scription, not transcription, and though the description must be distinct it need not be lengthy or extended. Newman v. State, 101 Ga. 534, 28 S.E. 1005 (1897); Cunningham v. State, 1 Ga. App. 697, 58 S.E. 23 (1907); Cunningham v. State, 128 Ga. 55, 57 S.E. 90 (1907); Ragans v. Ragans, 200 Ga. 890, 39 S.E.2d 162 (1946) (see Ga. Const. 1983, Art. III, Sec. V, Para. IV). tice that certain Act is to be amended. Stembridge v. Newton, 213 Ga. 304, 99 S.E.2d 133 (1957) (see Ga. Const. 1983, Art. III, Sec. V, Para. IV).

## This Paragraph Requires Only de-Paragraph Satisfied When All on no-Paragraph Not Violated Where Casual Reading Shows Amended Section.

— Where a most casual reading of the amendment will suffice to show precisely, and without the slightest danger of mistake, what section was to be amended, this paragraph is not violated. Ryle v. Wilkinson County, 104 Ga. 473, 30 S.E. 934 (1898) (see Ga. Const. 1983, Art. III, Sec. V, Para. IV). ciently described in the body of the amendment. Town of Maysville v. Smith, 132 Ga. 316, 64 S.E. 131 (1909); Tison v. City of Doerun, 155 Ga. 367, 116 S.E. 615 (1923).

## Omission of Date of Approval Immaterial Where Original Act Is suffi-Place of Description.

It is immaterial that the description did not precede, but followed, that portion of the amending Act which declared what the amendment should be. Fite v. Black, 85 Ga. 413, 11 S.E. 782 (1890); Georgia R.R. & Banking Co. v. George, 92 Ga. 760, 19 S.E. 813 (1894); Silvey & Co. v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 94 Ga. 609, 21 S.E. 607 (1894); Fullington v. Williams, 98 Ga. 807, 27 S.E. 183 (1896); Gilbert v. Georgia R.R. & Banking Co., 104 Ga. 412, 30 S.E. 673 (1898); Ryle v. Wilkinson County, 104 Ga. 473, 30 S.E. 934 (1898). gether. Georgia R.R. & Banking Co. v. George, 92 Ga. 760, 19 S.E. 813 (1894); Gilbert v. Georgia R.R. & Banking Co., 104 Ga. 412, 30 S.E. 673 (1898).

Title as well as entire Act may be considered in determining whether Act violates this paragraph. Ragans v. Ragans, 200 Ga. 890, 39 S.E.2d 162 (1946) (see Ga. Const. 1983, Art. III, Sec. V, Para. IV).

Town charter amended by setting forth name and date thereof. Town of Poulan v. Atlantic Coast Line R.R., 123 Ga. 605, 51 S.E. 657 (1905); City of Cartersville v. McGinnis, 142 Ga. 71, 82 S.E. 487 (1914).

Implied Repeals

This paragraph has no reference to implied amendments or repeals. Peed v. McCrary, 94 Ga. 487, 21 S.E. 232 (1894); Silver v. State, 147 Ga. 162, 93 S.E. 145 (1917); Berry v. State, 153 Ga. 169, 111 S.E. 669 (1922); Walthour v. City of Atlanta, 157 Ga. 24, 120 S.E. 613 (1923); Durham v. State, 166 Ga. 561, 144 S.E. 109 (1928); Head v. Wilkinson, 186 Ga. 739, 198 S.E. 782 (1938); Williams v. State, 187 Ga. 415, 1 S.E.2d 27 (1939); Barber v. Housing Auth., 189 Ga. 155, 5 S.E.2d 425 (1939); Fortson v. Fortson, 200 Ga. 116, 35 S.E.2d 896 (1945); Leonard v. State ex rel. Lanier, 204 Ga. 465, 50 S.E.2d 212 (1948) (see Ga. Const. 1983, Art. III, Sec. V, Para. IV).

There is amendment or repeal by oncilable with older law. Bedingfield v. Parkerson, 212 Ga. 654, 94 S.E.2d 714 (1956). vored. Glover v. State, 126 Ga. 594, 55 S.E. 592 (1906); Edalgo v. Southern Ry., 129 Ga. 258, 58 S.E. 846 (1907); Thomas v. Board of Comm’rs, 196 Ga. 10, 25 S.E.2d 647 (1943).

Repeal by implication is possible, but not favored, and before an Act will be held to have been repealed by implication the conflict between it and the repealing Act must be clear. One statute will not be construed to repeal another by implication unless the two are in irreconcilable conflict. Kaminsky v. State, 76 Ga. App. 505, 46 S.E.2d 640 (1948).

The intention to repeal will not be presumed, nor the effect of repeal admitted, unless the inconsistency is unavoidable. Goebel v. Hodges, 83 Ga. App. 574, 64 S.E.2d 207 (1951). pealed by implication by later Act unless they are wholly inconsistent, or unless the later Act covers the entire field of the former legislation. Fairfax Implied Repeals (Cont’d) Bldg. Co. v. Oldknow, 46 Ga. App. 281, 167 S.E. 538 (1933).

Specific Laws

Omission of section of tax Act in

## Entire Amendment Is Construed Toimplication Where Later Law Is irrec-Repeals by Implication Are Not fa-Valid Subsisting Statute Is Not Resucceeding Act Is Repeal.

Where a section of the General Tax Act of 1927 exempting vendors of perishable farm products from payment of license fees or taxes (Ga. L. 1927, p. 56, former Code 1933, § 92-1602) was entirely omitted from the succeeding Tax Act of 1935 (Ga. L. 1935, p. 11), which Act covered the entire subject matter dealt with by the general Tax Act of 1927, the omission must be held to have been intentional and to have effected the repeal of the omitted provision in the previous Act. Fidelity Fruit & Produce Co. v. City of Atlanta, 183 Ga. 698, 189 S.E. 527 (1937).


> The printed notes continue for 5,954 more characters, not shown here. Continue at https://georgiacommons.org/constitution/ga/art-iii-sec-v-para-iv.md?notes=all&start=11377