Adams v. Illinois Cent. R. Co.
| Decision Date | 19 March 1894 |
| Citation | 15 So. 640,71 Miss. 752 |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Parties | WIRT ADAMS, STATE REVENUE AGENT, USE YAZOO-MISSISSIPPI DELTA LEVEE DISTRICT v. ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILRAOAD CO |
fro the circuit court of the first district of Hinds county, HON J. B. CHRISMAN, Judge.
Suit brought January 1, 1894, by appellant, for use of Yazoo-Mississippi Delta Levee District, against appellee for privilege tax imposed by the act of 1886 (Laws, p. 100)on the business of operating a telegraph linc for the years 1886 1887 and 1888. Defendant pleaded the statutes of limitation of three and six years. A demurrer to each of these ideas being overruled, plaintiff declined to plead further, and from judgment dismissing the case, prosecuted this appeal. For the act creating the levee district, see Laws 1884, p 140.
Reversed and remanded.
Calhoon & Green, for appellant.
1. The Yazoo-Mississippi Delta Levee District is a subdivision of the state under § 104, constitution 1890, and the statute of limitations does not run against it. In Clement v. Anderson, 46 Miss. 581, it was held that the state only was exempt from the operation of statutes of limitations. The purpose of § 104 of the constitution was to extend this privilege to counties, municipal corporations and other subdivisions. The levee district had been created and is expressly recognized by the constitution. See § 228; et seq.
2. Section 104 of the constitution, of its own force, repealed all statutes of limitations in cases of this kind. It went into immediate effect, and was not suspended by the provisions of § 274, because no legislation was required to put it in force. See Warren County v. Stone, 69 Miss. 375.
Mayes & Harris, for appellee.
1. The statute of limitations runs against the levee district, though it be considered a territorial municipal corporation. Wood on Lim., § 53.
The running of the statute was not arrested by § 104, constitution 1890, because the levee district is neither a subdivision of the state nor a municipal corporation. The statute expressly declares that it is a private corporation. Laws 1890, ch. 65.
But, supposing it to be true that statutes of limitation do not run against the levee district, even the constitution could not divest a defense existing when the constitution became operative. Wood on Lim., p. 26, n. 4.
Section 104 of the constitution did not become operative until April 2, 1892. The statute of limitations was repugnant to it, and its provisions were suspended by § 274.
It is immaterial that the statute did not contain any express provision that it should run against the levee district. There was no exception in its favor. Section 274 of the constitution will not be so strictly construed as to confine its operation to the expressed declaration of statutes. But the declaration of the statute of limitations is that "all actions shall be brought within," etc. This necessarily includes suits brought by the levee district, and it was clearly repugnant to §104 of the constitution, if it be held to include a levee district.
The settled construction of a statute is, in effect, a part of it. Sedgwick's Stat. Con., 365, 366; 5 Peters, 264; Swift v. Tyson, 16 Ib., 1; McDonald v. Hovey, 110 U.S. 619.
If, then, § 104 did not become operative until April 2, 1892, the right to demand the taxes for 1886, 1887, 1888 and 1889 was barred before suit.
2. The three years' statute applies, not the six. Code 1880, § 2670.
The Yazoo-Mississippi Delta Levee District, created by statute and recognized by article 11 of the state constitution as a division of the state, is a subdivision thereof within the terms of § 104 of the constitution of 1890 which declares, "statutes of limitation in civil causes shall not run against the state or any subdivision or municipal corporation thereof," and said section became operative immediately, by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gulf & S. I. R. Co. v. Laurel Oil & Fertilizer Co.
... ... authorized by Railroad Commission, and for one hundred per ... cent, penalty, one-year limitation statute barred penalty ... (Code 1930, section 2301) ... Town of Durant, 122 ... Miss. 471, 491; Belt et al. v. Adams, 124 Miss. 194, 202; ... Miss. Railroad Commission et al. v. G. M. & N. R. R. Co., 155 ... So ... Memphis, Tennessee, he having a like position with the ... Illinois Central Railroad Company, and the Yazoo & ... Mississippi Valley Railroad Company, and that he ... ...
-
R. T. Clark & Co. v. Miller, State Revenue Agent
... ... asked levee board to increase contract price and board raised ... contract price fifty per cent contractors held liable to ... board, under Constitution 1890, section 96, for excess paid ... United States Fidelity and Guaranty ... Co., 145 Miss. 599, 606, 607, 111 So. 94-5; Adams v ... Haiger, 51 S.E. 638; 30 Cyc., p. 659; 20 R. C. L., p. 974, ... sec. 204 ... In ... 104; General Accident, etc., ... Co. v. Walker, 99 Miss. 404; Illinois Central ... Railroad Co. v. Jordan, 108 Miss. 140, and Standard ... Accident Insurance Co. v ... ...
-
Gully v. First Nat. Bank In Meridian
...12, U.S.C. A., sec. 5235 R. S.; People of New York v. Hopkins, 18 F.2d 731; State of Mississippi v. Joiner, 23 Miss. 500; Adams v. I. C. R. R., 15 So. 640, 71 Miss. 752; Josselyn v. Stone, 28 Miss. 753; Parmilee McNutt, I S. & M. 179; Trust Co. v. Norfolk, 183 F. 803, 197 F. 737; Texas Pac.......
-
Gulf & S. I. R. Co. v. Laurel Oil & Fertilizer Co
...Co., 245 S.W. 644; Texarkana Ry. Co. v. Houston Gas Co., 51 S.W.2d 284; Bonfils v. Public Utilities Com., 189 P. 775; Adams v. I. C. R. R. Co., 71 Miss. 752, 15 So. 640; Madison County v. Collier, 87 Miss. 204, 30, 610; DeSoto County v. Wood, 150 Miss. 432, 116 So. 738; State v. Smith, 156 ......