Pearl River Val. Water Supply Dist. v. Brown
| Decision Date | 09 December 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 42886,42886 |
| Citation | 248 Miss. 4,158 So.2d 694 |
| Parties | PEARL RIVER VALLEY WATER SUPPLY DISTRICT v. J. Leland BROWN et al. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Robert H. Weaver, Watkins, Pyle, Edwards & Ludlam, Jackson, for appellant.
J. P. Coleman, W. D. Coleman, Ackerman, Lee, Moore & Countiss, Jackson, for appellees.
Appellees filed a motion to assess the costs in this case against the appellant.
The appellant, Pearl River Valley Water Supply District, filed condemnation proceedings against J. Leland Brown and Mrs. Amie Brown, landowners, to condemn certain lands for use by the District. The landowners applied to the circuit court for a writ of prohibition and upon final hearing a permanent writ of prohibition was granted prohibiting the eminent domain court from proceeding with the condemnation of the land. The District appealed to this Court and the judgment of the circuit court was reversed and the writ of prohibition vacated. 156 So.2d 572.
The opinion made no reference to court costs, but the judgment taxed the costs against J. Leland Brown and Mrs. Amie Brown, appellees, the unsuccessful parties.
Sec. 1579, Miss.Code of 1942, is included in Chap. 4, Title 10 of the Code, the subject of which is 'Costs.' Sec. 1579 is as follows:
Chap. 3, Title 12, Miss.Code of 1942, includes the statutes on eminent domain, Secs. 2749-2782. Sec. 2767, Code of 1942, covers costs in eminent domain proceedings and is as follows:
Sec. 2782, included in the chapter on eminent domain, provides that the legal remedy by way of prohibition is made applicable for the purpose of testing the questions, (1) whether the applicant seeking to exercise the right of eminent domain is entitled to the right, or (2) whether there is public necessity for the taking of the particular property proposed to be condemned. This suit was instituted by appellees as landowners by virtue of, but not under, the provisions of Sec. 2782, Code of 1942. However, there are no provisions in the chapter on eminent domain governing writs of prohibition except Sec. 2782, Code of 1942, which makes prohibition available for the purposes stated.
The question for decision is whether this proceeding,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Timmons v. South Carolina Tricentennial Commission
...park and picnic areas, and as a wild life sanctuary. Pearl River Valley Water Supply District v. Brown, 248 Miss. 4, 156 So.2d 572, 576, 158 So.2d 694. As long as the use is of benefit, utility or advantage to the public, the use is a public one within the meaning of the law of eminent doma......
-
Jackson Redevelopment Authority v. King, Inc.
...is allowed to purchase the land for private use. In the Pearl River Valley Water Supply Dist. v. Brown, 248 Miss. 4, 156 So.2d 572, 158 So.2d 694 (1963). Brown case it was decided that where the incidental power to lease land to a private individual or corporation is connected with a paramo......
-
Texas Eastern Transmission Corp. v. Wildlife Preserves, Inc.
...game and bird preserves, 16 U.S.C.A. §§ 671--697a; Pearl River Valley Water Supply District v. Brown, 248 Miss. 4, 156 So.2d 572, 158 So.2d 694 (Sup.Ct.1963); State ex rel. North Carolina Utilities Comm. v. Story, 241 N.C. 103, 84 S.E.2d 386 (Sup.Ct.1954). Under the circumstances, and altho......
-
Treuting v. Bridge and Park Commission of City of Biloxi, 44711
...does not negative the comprehensive public purpose. In Pearl River Valley Water Supply District v. Brown, 248 Miss. 4, 156 So.2d 572, 158 So.2d 694 (1963), the land owner contended that proposed use of his land, taken by eminent domain, for restaurants and other private purposes, with refer......