Albritton v. City of Winona
Decision Date | 07 February 1938 |
Docket Number | 33074 |
Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Parties | ALBRITTON v. CITY OF WINONA |
(In Banc.)
1 STATES.
The state exists to promote welfare of its citizens, that is their peace, happiness, and prosperity (Const. Miss. 1890 section 6; Const. U.S. Preamble).
2 STATES.
The government is the state's agent, created by its Constitution and charged with the duty of accomplishing the purpose for which the state exists of promoting welfare of its citizens, which duty rests with equal force upon the executive, legislative, and judicial departments of the government.
3. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.
The legislative department of state government is primarily charged with duty of determining by what means purpose of promoting welfare of citizens of state can be accomplished and to that end it is invested with all legislative power, except as restricted by Constitution (Const. 1890, section 33).
4. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.
Upon the judicial department of state government devolves the duty of determining whether in specific instances the executive and legislative departments have exceeded the powers granted them by the Constitution.
5. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.
In determining whether legislative act violates Constitution, courts substitute their judgments for that of Legislature as to wisdom and policy of act, and must enforce it, unless it appears beyond all reasonable doubt to violate the Constitution.
6. TAXATION.
The state's taxing power can be resorted to only for a constitutionally valid public or governmental purpose.
7. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.
The phrase "due process of law" has been expanded beyond its literal meaning of due procedure and is now interpreted to mean that the government is without right to deprive a person of life, liberty, or property by an act that has no reasonable relation to any proper governmental purpose, or which is so far beyond the necessity of the case as to be an arbitrary exercise of governmental power (Const. Miss. 1890, section 14; Const. U.S. Amend. 14).
8. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.
The care of the poor, the relief of unemployment, and the promotion of agriculture and industry are proper governmental purposes as to which statutes can be enacted.
9. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS. States.
The state and its political subdivisions have authority to engage in enterprises usually owned and operated by private individuals, provided public interest requires public ownership or operation.
10. TAXATION.
The validity of state's exercise of taxing power does not rest alone on necessity, but state may exercise power to make government subserve the general welfare of society and advance the present and prospective happiness and prosperity of its people.
11. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS.
The question whether statute authorizing municipal ownership of manufacturing enterprises was so far beyond the necessity of the case as to be merely arbitrary exercise of governmental power is question of fact or of an inference to be drawn from facts, and, in determining such question, the court is not confined to facts stated in preamble of statute but must take into consideration any other relative sustaining facts (Laws 1936, 1st Ex. Sess., chapter 1, sections 1, 2, et seq.).
12. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.
The due process clauses of State and Federal Constitutions do not prevent a state government from adapting life to the continuous change in social and economic conditions (Const. Miss. 1890, section 14; Const. U.S. Amend. 14).
13. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.
Each case involving question whether state statute violates due process clauses of State and Federal Constitutions must be decided on the social and economic conditions that exist when the statute was enacted or at time case is decided (Const. Miss. 1890, section 14; Const. U.S. Amend. 14).
14. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS.
Under statute authorizing municipalities to own manufacturing plants and to lease them for operation by individuals or private corporations, the lease must be of such character as will insure the continued operation of the proposed industry with power in the municipality, under supervision of Industrial Commission, to enforce the continued operation, to best promote and protect the public interest, and to constitute the lessee the municipality's agent for operating the industry without liability on the municipality to others arising therefrom (Laws 1936, 1st Ex. Sess., chapter 1, sections 1, 2, et seq.).
15. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS.
In determining validity of statute authorizing municipalities to own manufacturing plants and to lease them for operation by individuals or corporations, court could not specifically set forth and limit provisions of such leases, but was required to presume that public authorities executing lease would take care that provisions of lease would comply with statutory requirements (Laws 1936, 1st Ex. Sess., chapter 1, sections 1, 2, et seq.; Code 1930, section 2455).
16. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.
The statute authorizing municipalities to levy a tax for purpose of purchasing land and constructing buildings thereon to be leased to individuals or private corporations for purpose of operating manufacturing establishments in order to relieve unemployment and promote agricultural and industrial welfare of state does not violate due process clauses of State and Federal Constitutions (Laws 1936, 1st Ex. Sess., chapter 1, sections 1, 2, et seq.; Const. Miss. 1890, section 14; Const. U.S. Amend. 14).
17. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS.
The statute authorizing municipalities to acquire land and construct buildings thereon to be leased to individuals or private corporations for purpose of operating manufacturing establishments in order to relieve unemployment and promote agricultural and industrial welfare of state does not violate Constitution prohibiting appropriation of property to private individuals or corporations where lease must contain provisions giving municipality power to enforce use of property for such purposes (Laws 1936, 1st Ex. Sess., chapter 1, sections 1, 2, et. seq.; Const. 1890, section 183).
18. STATES.
The statute authorizing municipalities to acquire land and construct buildings thereon to be leased to individuals or private corporations for purpose of operating manufacturing establishments in order to relieve unemployment and promote agricultural and industrial welfare of state did not violate Constitution prohibiting state from pledging or loaning its credit in aid of any person, association, or corporation (Laws 1936, 1st Ex. Sess., cahapter 1, sections 1, 2, et seq.; Const. 1890, section 258).
19. EMINENT DOMAIN.
The provision of the Constitution providing that private property shall not be taken or damaged for public use, except on due compensation first being made to owner thereof, does not apply to state's taxing power but only to the taking by it of specific property for public use (Const. 1890, section 17).
20. EMINENT DOMAIN.
The statute authorizing municipalities to levy a tax for purpose of purchasing land and constructing buildings thereon to be leased to individuals or private corporations for purpose of operating manufacturing establishments in order to relieve unemployment and promote agricultural and industrial welfare of state does not violate Constitution providing that private property shall not be taken or damaged for public use, except on due compensation first being made to owner thereof (Laws 1936, 1st Ex. Sess., chapter 1, sections 1, 2, et seq.; Const. 1890, section 17).
HON. L. A. SMITH, SR., Chancellor.
APPEAL from the chancery court of Montgomery county Hon. L. A. SMITH, SR., Chancellor.
Proceedings by the City of Winona to validate a proposed bond issue, wherein W. S. Albritton filed objections. From a decree validating the bonds, W. S. Albritton appeals. Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Dornan v. Philadelphia Hous. Auth.
...54 S.Ct. 505, 78 L.Ed. 940, 89 A.L.R 1469); Commonwealth v. Stofchek, 322 Pa. 513, 520, 185 A. 840; Albritton v. City of Winona, Miss., 178 So. 799 (appeal to United States Supreme Court dismissed for want of a substantial federal question, 58 S.Ct. 766, 82 L.Ed. —); Jones v. City of Portla......
-
Mississippi Power Co. v. Goudy
...has the power to make investigations and give painstaking consideration to the results thereof. In Albritton v. City of Winona, 181 Miss. 75, 178 So. 799 (1938), p. 805, we The due process clauses of our constitutions must not be construed so as to put the state and federal governments into......
-
Superior Oil Co. v. Foote
...industry and utilization of natural resources in order to add to the wealth and prosperity of the state. Albritton v. City of Winona, 1938, 181 Miss. 75, 178 So. 799, 115 A.L.R. 1436, appeal dismissed in Allbritton v. City of Winona, 1938, 303 U.S. 627, 58 S.Ct. 766, 82 L.Ed. 1088; Ohio Oil......
-
Wells by Wells v. Panola County Bd. of Educ., 91-CA-00101
...that such statute violates the constitution. Anderson v. Fred Wagner, Etc., 402 So.2d 320, 321 (Miss.1981); Albritton v. City of Winona, 181 Miss. 75, 178 So. 799, 803 (1938). In short, if the statutes challenged in this case are not unconstitutional, the Board was entitled to dismissal as ......