Aldridge v. Bogue Phalia Drainage Dist.
| Decision Date | 16 February 1914 |
| Docket Number | 17063 |
| Citation | 64 So. 377,106 Miss. 626 |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Parties | F. P. ALDRIDGE et al. v. BOGUE PHALIA DRAINAGE DISTRICT |
APPEAL from the chancery court of Washington county, HON. E. N. THOMAS, Chancellor.
From a decree confirming an assessment by the Bogue Phalia Drainage Commissioners. Frank P. Aldridge and others appeal.
The facts are fully stated in the opinion of the court.
Affirmed.
Watson & Jayne, Dabney & Dabney and Sillers, Owen & Sillers, attorneys for appellant.
Percy & Percy, attorneys for appellees.
Appellant's first, second, and fourth assignments of error are governed by what was said this day in the opinion rendered in the case of Wheeler & Silber v. Bogue Phalia Drainage District, 106 Miss. 619, 64 So. 375. The other assignments will be set forth and decided seriatim.
Third. "That the evidence shows only a small part of appellant's lands, if any, are benefited or will be benefited by the installation of the proposed drainage system, and that therefore the remainder of said lands should not have been assessed for any sum." The question here raised is one of fact decided by the court below on conflicting evidence, and its decision, therefore, is not open to review.
Fifth. "The court erred in allowing the witness George Metcalf to answer the following question propounded to him by the attorney for the drainage district, without first having been qualified as an expert and without having been shown to be familiar with the lands in question: 'What is your opinion as to that being a well or properly drained piece of property under the conditions existing there?' and without having been familiar with the conditions existing there." Conceding that the objection to this question should have been sustained, there is no probability that the decree of the chancellor would have been otherwise than what it was had he sustained the objection and excluded the answer.
Sixth. "The court erred in overruling the objector's motion for a trial by jury." The right of trial by jury guaranteed by section 31 of our Constitution does not "extend to questions in the trial of which a jury is not necessary by the ancient principles of common law." Lewis v. Garrett, 5 Howard 434; Isom v. Railroad Co., 36 Miss. 300.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stirling v. Logue
... ... McLendon, 119 Miss. 210, 80 So. 633; ... Aldridge v. Bogue Phalia Drainage Dist., 106 Miss ... 626, 64 So ... ...
-
Wells by Wells v. Panola County Bd. of Educ., 91-CA-00101
...Commission, 291 Ill. 167, 125 N.E. 748 (1919). Referring to our own cases, we continued: In the case of Aldridge v. Bogue Phalia Drainage District, [106 Miss. 626, 64 So. 377 (1914) ] this Court said: "The right of trial by jury guaranteed by Section 31 of our Constitution does not extend t......
-
Missouri Pac. Transp. Co. v. Beard
... ... Aldridge ... v. Bogue Phalia Dr. Dist., 106 Miss. 626, 64 So. 377; ... ...
-
Walters v. Blackledge
...of common law. Lewis v. Garrett's Adm'rs, 5 How., Miss., 434; Isom v. Mississippi Cent. R. Co., 36 Miss. 300; Aldridge v. Bogue Phalia Drainage Dist., 106 Miss. 626, 64 So. 377. It is well settled that workmen's compensation acts similar to our own are not to be deemed invalid by reason of ......