2021 Georgia Code
Title 9 - Civil Practice
Chapter 3 - Limitations of Actions
Article 2 - Specific Periods of Limitation
§ 9-3-28. Actions by Informers

All actions by informers to recover any fine, forfeiture, or penalty shall be commenced within one year from the time the defendant's liability thereto is discovered or by reasonable diligence could have been discovered.

(Laws 1767, Cobb's 1851 Digest, p. 563; Code 1863, § 2866; Code 1868, § 2874; Code 1873, § 2925; Code 1882, § 2925; Civil Code 1895, § 3776; Civil Code 1910, § 4370; Code 1933, § 3-714.)

- Determination of precedence of actions by informers to recover fine, forfeiture, or penalty, § 9-2-47.

Word "penalty" involves idea of punishment, whether enforced by civil or criminal procedure. Southern Ry. v. Inman, Akers & Inman, 11 Ga. App. 564, 75 S.E. 908 (1912).

All persons empowered to sue for penalties are treated as informers, and such actions are limited by this section. Greene v. Lam Amusement Co., 145 F. Supp. 346 (N.D. Ga. 1956).

- Action for purpose of imposing a penalty is in the nature of a quasi-criminal proceeding. Sherman & Sons Co. v. Bitting, 26 Ga. App. 299, 105 S.E. 848, cert. denied, 26 Ga. App. 801, 105 S.E. 848 (1921).

Recovery of penalty against telegraph company for failure to deliver message is governed by this section. Western Union Tel. Co. v. Nunnally, 86 Ga. 503, 12 S.E. 578 (1891).

Action under Ga. L. 1906, p. 102, § 2 (see now O.C.G.A. § 46-9-48), regulating refunding of overpayments on freight, was controlled by former Code 1895, § 3776 (see now O.C.G.A. § 9-3-28). Central of Ga. Ry. v. Huson, 5 Ga. App. 529, 63 S.E. 597 (1909).

Penalties against railroads fixed by former Civil Code 1910, § 2755 (see now O.C.G.A. § 46-9-216) for failure to sell tickets of connecting lines were governed by former Civil Code 1910, § 4370 (see now O.C.G.A. § 9-3-28). Atlanta & W.P.R.R. v. Coleman, 142 Ga. 94, 82 S.E. 499 (1914).

Action based on violation of rule of railroad commission requiring carrier to furnish freight cars was governed by this section. Southern Ry. v. Inman, Akers & Inman, 11 Ga. App. 564, 75 S.E. 908 (1912).

Treble damages for alleged violation of federal anti-trust laws are not penalty or forfeiture, but are compensatory damages. Greene v. Lam Amusement Co., 145 F. Supp. 346 (N.D. Ga. 1956).

This section does not apply to action by creditors against bank directors, when no fine is provided for. Neal v. Moultrie, 12 Ga. 104 (1852).

- District court erred in ruling that a former employee's improper-notification claim was barred by the applicable statute of limitations, O.C.G.A. § 9-3-28, because the employee's suit was within the one-year limitations period when the suit was filed because a Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act improper- notice claim accrued when a plaintiff either knew or should have known the facts necessary to bring an improper-notice claim, and the employee's claim did not accrue until the employee learned from a lawyer that the employee should have received notice of the employee's continuation right from the former employer. Cummings v. Wash. Mut., 650 F.3d 1386 (11th Cir. 2011).

Cited in Western Union Tel. Co. v. Nunnally, 86 Ga. 503, 12 S.E. 578 (1891); Busbee v. Gillis, 241 Ga. 353, 245 S.E.2d 304 (1978); City Express Serv., Inc. v. Rich's, Inc., 148 Ga. App. 123, 250 S.E.2d 867 (1978).