Bank of Commerce & Trust Co. v. Commissioners of Tallhatchie Drainage Dist. No. 1

• Decision Date: 05 May 1930
• Docket Number: 28474
• Citation: 157 Miss. 336,128 So. 91
• Parties: BANK OF COMMERCE & TRUST CO. et al. v. COMMISSIONERS OF TALLHATCHIE DRAINAGE DIST. NO. 1
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court

128 So. 91

157 Miss. 336

BANK OF COMMERCE & TRUST CO. et al. v. COMMISSIONERS OF TALLHATCHIE DRAINAGE DIST. NO. 1

No. 28474

Supreme Court of Mississippi

May 5, 1930

Division B

1 DRAINS.

Drainage districts are public as well as private corporations.

2 DRAINS.

Drainage district commissioners acting within scope of authority can bind landowners by contracts.

3 JUDGMENT.

Judgment aganst commissioners of drainage district for preliminary expenses incurred prior to abandonment of improvements was res judicata against all landowners of district.

4. DRAINS. Under statute, chancery court must apportion indebtedness of drainage district where improvements are abandoned, and direct whether it shall be paid by acreage tax or ad valorem tax.

Laws 1912, chapter 195, section 4, as amended by Laws 1914, chapter 269, section 4, Laws 1918, chapter 159, section 1, and Laws 1922, chapter 213, section 1, relates to apportioning indebtedness between counties and levying tax if improvements in drainage district are abandoned after indebtedness is incurred.

5. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. Drains. Failure of statutes relating to taxes to pay preliminary expenses of drainage district abandoning improvements to provide for notice to landowners does not violate due process clause as regards ad valorem taxes (Laws 1912, chapter 195, section 4, as amended; Constitution, United States Amendment 14).

Laws 1912, chapter 195, section 4, as amended by Laws 1914, chapter 269, section 4, Laws 1918, chapter 159, section 1, and Laws 1922, chapter 213, section 1, provides that if an ad valorem tax is levied to meet indebtedness of district for preliminary expenses where improvements are abandoned, the last land assessment rolls of counties in which lands are situated are to be used, and under the statutes the assessment of land values as represented by such rolls is made after due notice to, and an opportunity of hearing by, the landowners, and no other notice is necessary in order to furnish due process to landowners of district.

6. DRAINS.

Ad valorem tax levied for expenses of drainage district abandoning improvements must be apportioned among counties in proportion assessed value of lands each bears to total (Laws 1912, chapter 195, section 4, as amended).

HON. R. E. JACKSON, Chancellor.

APPEAL from chancery court of Tallahatchie county, First district HON. R. E. JACKSON, Chancellor.

Petition by the Bank of Commerce & Trust Company and another against the Commissioners of Tallahatchie Drainage District No. 1 to collect a judgment against the drainage district. From a decree dismissing the petition, petitioners appeal. Reversed and remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

Julian C. Wilson, and Wilson, Gates & Armstrong, all of Memphis, Tenn., for appellants.

The provisions of the Act of 1914, chapter 269 and 1918, chapter 159 are constitutional in that full notice is given to all landowners of the application for organization, the description of their lands to be embraced, and the making and approval of assessments. The proceedings are begun by initial notice to landowners in the chancery court, and they are to the knowledge of each landowner pending and open from the initial step to the close of the proceedings.

Chapter 269, Acts 1914, pp. 329, 331, 337; Cox v. Wallace, 100 Miss. 526; Jones v. Drainage District, 102 Miss. 796; Yazoo County v. Grable, 111 Miss. 893; Wooten v. Hickahala Drainage District, 116 Miss. 787; Kramer v. Standing Pine District, 117 Miss. 387; Mabry v. Russell, 134 Miss. 239; Jackson v. Burns, 148 Miss. 7; Houck v. Little River Drainage Dist., 239 U.S. 254, 60 L.Ed. 266; Breiholz v. Pocahontas County, 257 U.S. 118, 66 L.Ed. 159; Missouri Pacific R. R. Co. v. Western Crawford Road Improvement District, 69 L.Ed. 237.

The Drainage Law of 1912, page 217 is constitutional.

Yazoo County v. Grable, 111 Miss. 893; Buford v. State, 146 Miss. 66-82; Holmes v. State, 146 Miss. 351-360; Johnson v. State, 146 Miss. 593-599.

The district owes for the maps, plans, surveys, tents, stakes, etc., bought by the commissioners for the district. It was a necessary expense of the work of the district preliminary to making the assessment and digging the drainage ditches. The commissioners by the contract for that purpose bound the district to pay the agreed price for these things.

Tallahatchie Drainage District No. 1 v. Yocona Tallahatchie Drainage District No. 1, 148 Miss. 182.

That debt has been merged now in a judgment affirmed by this court. The district, as a corporate body politic, capable of suing and being sued, was a defendant to the suit on which the judgment was obtained being represented by its commissioners who appealed to this court, then and are appellees here now.

Tallahatchie Dist. v. Yocona District, 148 Miss. 182.

The judgment is fully and in all respects res adjudicata against the landowners and taxpayers.

Williams v. Board of Supervisors DeSoto County, 139 Miss. 78; Von Zondt v. Town of Braxton, 149 Miss. 461; Jonestown v. Ganong, 52 So. 692; Ashton v. City of Rochester (N.Y. Ct. of App.), 30 N.E. 965-968; Shanahan v. City of South Omaha (Neb.), 89 N.W. 285-288; Stone v. Winn (Ky. Ct. App.), 176 S.W. 933-940; Eaton v. Board of Trustees, Mocksville School Dist. (N. C.), 114 S.E. 689; Missouri P. R. R. Co. v. Sears (Ark.), 265 S.E. 653-655.

The chancery court having refused to treat this claim as a proper debt against the district and apportion the amount of it among the several counties of the district, either to be paid by the boards of supervisors direct or by the boards of supervisors by a tax levied on the lands in each county, the case should be reversed with specific directions to so apportion the tax among the counties and directions as to how the same should be laid.

J. M. Kuykendall and Caldwell & Caldwell, all of Charleston, and Watkins, Watkins & Eager, of Jackson, for appellee.

The drainage commissioners have the right to test the constitutionality of the act.

Section 14, Bill of Rights, Constitution of State of Miss.; Section 24, Bill of Rights, Constitution of State of Miss.; The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; Section 33, Constitution of the State of Miss.; Pearl River County v. Lacy Lumber Co., 86 So. 755, 124 Miss. 85; Norwood v. State, 136 Miss. 272; State v. Grenada County, 105 So. 541; State v. Wheatley, 113 Miss. 555; Toombs v. Sharkey, 140 Miss. 676.

Section 1, chapter 159, Mississippi Laws of 1918, exclusive remedy, if appellants, at any time, entitled to relief.

Enochs v. Robertson, 91 So. 21, 128 Miss. 361; State v. Piazza, 66 Miss. 426; Woodruff v. State, 71 Miss. 115; Revenue Agent v. Stonewall Mills, 80 Miss. 90; State v. New River Drainage District (La.), 87 So. 310.

While the legislature of the State of Mississippi had the right to create by legislative enactment a drainage district, and had the right to confer the same authority upon some other tribunal, which was done in this case; and the Legislature of the State of Mississippi had the further right, by legislative enactment, to fix the costs in the event the district was abandoned, the legislature has not done so in this case, but has attempted to confer the right upon the chancery court, and the act wherein such result is sought to be obtained is unconstitutional and void, because the legislature, not having fixed the costs, property owners were and are entitled to notice, and the statute contains no such provision.

Fall Brook Irrigation District v. Bradley, 164 U.S. 112, 41 L.Ed. 369; Houck v. Little River Drainage District, 239 U.S. 254, 60 L.Ed. 266; Redman v. Drainage District (Fla.), 80 So. 300; Swayne v. Hattiesburg, 147 Miss. 244, 111 So. 818; Memphis & Charleston R. R. Co. v. Bullen, 154 Miss. 536, 121 So. 826; Hancock County v. Shaw, 120 Miss. 48, 81 So. 647; Swayne v. Hattiesburg, 147 Miss. 244, 111 So. 818; Union Savings Bank v. City of Jackson, 84 So. 288, 122 Miss. 557; Bouslog v. City of Gulfport, 72 So. 896, 112 Miss. 184; Sick v. Bay of St. Louis, 74 So. 272, 113 Miss. 175; Hagar v. Reclaimation District, 111 U.S. 701, 28 L.Ed. 569; Spencer v. Merchant, 125 U.S. 345, 31 L.Ed. 763; Embree v. Road District, 250 U.S. 242, 60 L.Ed. 625; Russell v. Mabry, 99 So. 2, 134 Miss. 239; Bradford v. Creekmore, 107 So. 525, 142 Miss. 565; Redman v. Drainage District (Fla.), 80 So. 300; Londoner v. Denver, 210 U.S. 373, 52 L.Ed. 1103; Turner v. Wade, 254 U.S. 64, 65 L.Ed. 134.

There has been a statutory exhaustion of the power of apportioning expenses.

Drainage Dist. v. Clark & Parker, 86 So. 859, 124 Miss. 382.

Argued orally by Julian C. Wilson, for appellant and by W. H. Watkins and J. M. Kuykendall, for appellee.

OPINION

Anderson, J.

After the affirmance by the Supreme Court of the judgment of the circuit court of Tallahatchie county in favor of the Yocona-Tallahatchie drainage district, against the Tallahatchie drainage district (148 Miss. 182, 114 So. 264) the Yocona district transferred and assigned the judgment to appellant, the Bank of Commerce & Trust Company. The drainage improvements in the Tallahatchie district had been abandoned before there was any assessment of benefits, and the judgment represented preliminary expenses incurred prior thereto. Appellants, the Bank of Commerce & Trust Company and the Yocona district, joined in a petition to the chancery court of Tallahatchie county, which court was administering the affairs of the Tallahatchie district, to collect the judgment by having the chancery court, under the authority of section 4, chapter 269, Laws of 1914, as amended by section 1 of chapter 159, Laws of 1918 and section 1, chapter 213, Laws of 1922, to apportion the indebtedness represented by the judgment among the several counties in...