2020 Georgia Code
Title 44 - Property
Chapter 8 - Water Rights
§ 44-8-10. Construction or Establishment of Private Bridge or Ferry; Grant of Franchise to Construct or Operate Public Bridge or Ferry; Compensation to Landowner for Interference With Possession; When Franchise Exclusive Generally; Exclusive Franchises Pertaining to Streets or Sidewalks

The right to construct a bridge or to establish a ferry for private use across a watercourse within or adjoining one's lands is appurtenant to the ownership of the land; but the right to establish and operate a public bridge or ferry is a franchise to be granted by the state. Where the grant of such a franchise interferes with an owner's right of exclusive possession, just compensation must first be paid to the landowner. No such franchise granted by this state shall be held to be exclusive unless it is plainly and expressly declared to be exclusive in the grant; except, however, that any municipality of this state having a population of more than 200,000 according to the United States decennial census of 1930 or any future such census is authorized to grant an exclusive franchise pertaining to streets or sidewalks for a period of three years, but not subject to renewal, to any person, firm, or corporation under this authority to grant such a franchise whether or not it is plainly or expressly stated in the charter of the municipality.

(Orig. Code 1863, §§ 2212, 2213; Code 1868, §§ 2207, 2208; Code 1873, §§ 2233, 2234; Code 1882, §§ 2233, 2234; Civil Code 1895, §§ 3063, 3064; Civil Code 1910, §§ 3639, 3640; Code 1933, §§ 85-1311, 85-1312; Ga. L. 1937, p. 502, § 1; Ga. L. 1982, p. 2107, § 47.)

- Licenses for toll roads and bridges issued by county or municipality, § 36-60-21.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Strict construction of franchise grants.

- Grants of exclusive privileges to a corporation or an individual are to be strictly construed. McLeod v. Burroughs, 9 Ga. 213 (1851).

- Where the holder of a franchise has no contract with the state for a monopoly, the exclusive privilege which the holder had been fortunate enough to enjoy before a rival is chartered is not property in the constitutional sense; and the owner is not entitled to compensation when such privilege is taken away. State Hwy. Bd. v. Willcox, 168 Ga. 883, 149 S.E. 182 (1929).

- When the state grants a franchise that is not in its terms exclusive, it may subsequently grant a competing franchise that may utterly destroy the value of the first franchise, without incurring any obligation to make compensation. State Hwy. Bd. v. Willcox, 168 Ga. 883, 149 S.E. 182 (1929).

- A grant of a ferry franchise to meet the public convenience is not an exclusive grant that will, on account of the prohibition against impairing the obligations of contracts, preclude the legislature from granting a bridge franchise detracting from its value. State Hwy. Bd. v. Willcox, 168 Ga. 883, 149 S.E. 182 (1929).

- Where a franchise has been granted solely for public convenience, there can be no damages for its depreciating in value from the subsequent grant of a similar franchise. State Hwy. Bd. v. Willcox, 168 Ga. 883, 149 S.E. 182 (1929).

- The state can grant franchises to individuals or corporations to build toll bridges over streams, or to operate ferries over the same for toll. The grant of a franchise to do either is not exclusive and does not prevent the legislature from granting another franchise for either purpose. The legislature can condemn land for either purpose; and, if the taking of land does not prevent the exercise of the prior franchise, the same is not such taking of the property of the holder of the prior franchise as will entitle the holder to compensation. State Hwy. Bd. v. Willcox, 168 Ga. 883, 149 S.E. 182 (1929).

- Loss of profits in operating public ferry, resulting from condemnation of land for bridge on public highway, not recoverable. State Hwy. Bd. v. Willcox, 168 Ga. 883, 149 S.E. 182 (1929).

Cited in Woodruff v. Bowers, 165 Ga. 408, 140 S.E. 844 (1927).