Board of Ed. of Benton County v. State Educational Finance Commission

Decision Date05 March 1962
Docket NumberNo. 42218,42218
Citation243 Miss. 782,138 So.2d 912
PartiesBOARD OF EDUCATION OF BENTON COUNTY, Mississippi, v. STATE EDUCATIONAL FINANCE COMMISSION et al.
CourtMississippi Supreme Court

John B. Farese, Ashland, R. B. Smith, Ripley, for appellant.

Overstreet, Kuykendall, Perry & Phillips, Jackson, L. G. Fant, Jr., Holly Springs, for appellees.

RODGERS, Justice.

This controversy originated before the Board of Education of Benton County, Mississippi, where two orders were entered on application of certain children and their parents, residents of Benton County, asking to be transferred to Potts Camp Attendance Center in Marshall County. The school board entered separate orders denying the application of these children and the petitioners filed an appeal to the State Educational Finance Commission, hereinafter called 'Finance Commission.' An order was entered setting the date for a hearing before the Finance Commission, de novo. Notice was given to the respective parties, advising them of the time and place fixed for the hearing. After the hearing, the Finance Commission entered an order sustaining the application and petition of the children and their parents permitting a transfer from Benton County to the Potts Camp Attendance Center in Marshall County. No record was made of the testimony given in the hearing before the Finance Commission. The Commission went into executive session on June 2, 1961, at which time the determination was made to sustain the application of petitioners, but no written order was entered, and the Commission adjourned without having signed the minutes. The order was written on the minutes of June 13, 1961, and a copy sent to the Benton County Board of Education; however, the order was not signed until the next regular meeting of the Finance Commission on the 19th day of June 1961. On the 20th day of June 1961, the attorney for the Benton County Board of Education tendered to the Finance Commission 'a bill of exceptions.' The Finance Commission rejected a part of the bill but approved other parts. The Board of Education of Benton County made an application to amend the bill of exceptions, but this effort was rejected and overruled by the Finance Commission. The Finance Commission finally approved and signed a bill of exceptions for the purpose of appeal. The Board of Education of Benton County attached this bill of exceptions to the petition asking for the appeal filed in the Chancery Court of Benton County. The Chancellor entered an order permitting the children applicants and their parents to appear in the chancery court as appellees and take part in the hearing on appeal. The children and their parents, hereinafter called 'appellees', filed a motion in the chancery court asking the court to strike the bill of exceptions and dismiss the case upon the grounds that: (1) The bill of exceptions was not filed before the Finance Commission adjourned its special hearing; (2) the jurisdiction of the chancery court is wholly appellate, and in the absence of a transcribed record or a proper 'bill of exceptions', the chancery court could not entertain an appeal; (3) the transfer of students by the Finance Commission was effected under the authority of Chap. 296, Laws of 1960, which provides that the hearing before the Finance Commission shall be de novo, and further that the decision of the Finance Commission is final; and (4) that the foregoing law was passed by the Legislature after Section 6246-12, Miss.Code 1942, and by implication repeals the prior section.

The chancellor overruled the motion of the appellees, and also a motion of the Finance Commission, holding that there was an appeal to the chancery court from the orders of the Finance Commission. The chancellor also held that on appeal the chancery court could only determine: (1) whether or not the order of the Finance Commission was supported by substantial evidence; (2) whether or not the order of the Finance Commission was arbitrary or capricious; (3) whether or not the order went beyond the power of the Finance Commission; and (4) whether or not the order violated some statutory or constitutional right of the parties.

The Board of Education of Benton County, Mississippi, has appealed from the decree of the Chancery Court of Benton County to this Court. The following issues are presented for determination by this Court on appeal in this case: (1) whether or not the law permits an appeal from the Finance Commission; (2) and if there is a right of appeal, whether or not the 'bill of exceptions' filed with the Finance Commission was filed in time to perfect an appeal; (3) if there were an appeal under Sec. 6246-12, has the enactment of Chap. 296, Laws of 1960, Sec. 6248-07, Miss.Code 1942, repealed the original right of appeal by implication; (4) whether or not the right of an appeal from the orders of the Finance Commission is in violation of Sec. 1, Art. 1, Miss.Constitution of 1890; (5) whether or not Sec. 6248-07, Miss.Code 1942, Rec., granting an appeal to the Finance Commission violates Sec. 90(p), Miss.Constitution 1890; and (6) whether or not the 'bill of exceptions' states facts sufficiently to warrant the Supreme Court to reverse the findings of the Finance Commission.

At the threshold of this case, we are confronted with the determination of the various motions filed by the appellees and the Finance Commission, challenging the jurisdiction of the chancery court, and the Supreme Court on appeal, and we feel that they should be disposed of in the beginning of this opinion, not in separate opinions, because (as will appear later) we have treated them as if they were assignments of error.

I.

MOTION OF STATE FINANCE COMMISSION.

The first motion is that of the Finance Commission, wherein they argue that the order entered by the Finance Commission on appeal to it by the Board of Education of Benton County is final, because (a) an appeal to the courts is not a right but a statutory privilege--an appeal must be based upon a statute granting an appeal and that in this case there is no such statute; (b) the Finance Commission points out that there is no appeal to the chancery court and thence to the Supreme Court because the section granting an appeal (Sec. 6246-12, supra, has been repealed by implication) because Sec. 6248-07, Miss.Code 1942, Rec., as amended by Chap. 296, Laws 1960, contains the following language: 'In case the two (2) boards are unable to agree or in case there is a popular objection to the decision of the respective boards in the matter, appeals shall lie to the state educational finance commission whose decision shall be final', (Emphasis supplied.) which is alleged to prevent an appeal to the courts.

This Court pointed out in the case of Adams County, Mississippi Board of Education v. State Educational Finance Commission of Mississippi, 229 Miss. 566, 91 So.2d 524, that 'This appeal is authorized by Section 12( c) of Chapter 11, Laws of Mississippi, Extraordinary Session of 1953'; and this is the same section (Sec. 6246-12, Miss.Code 1942, Rec.) on which an appeal was granted in the case at bar, and in our opinion settles the question of appeal in this case. This Court has from time to time found it necessary to advise school authorities acting in a legislative capacity that the phrase 'The Board's decision shall be final' does not mean that the parties involved in school disputes are prevented from having their day in court. In the case of Hobbs et al. v. Germany et al., 94 Miss. 469, 49 So. 515, 516, 22 L.R.A.,N.S., 983 (1909), a child was expelled from school by the trustees under a rule requiring all pupils of the school to remain at their homes and study between designated hours in the evening. The Court said: 'The sole question presented by the record is as to the power of the school authorities to make and enforce this rule. The first contention is that the chancery court is without jurisdiction to entertain this proceeding, * * *. And again section 4487 provides: 'The board of education shall decide all appeals from decisions of county superintendents, or from the decisions of the state superintendent; * * *.' It is argued that under these two sections all controversies which in any way involve any question connected with the government of the schools must be first submitted to the county superintendent, and from his decision an appeal can be taken to the state board of education; but, where the state board of education decides it, the decision is final. * * *' (Emphasis supplied.) Thereupon, the Court held, as follows: 'Whenever a question arises as to whether or not the power of the school authorities to make a certain rule or regulation is reasonably within the scope of the power conferred on them by law, the question is undoubtedly subject to inquiry by the courts.' This case is in point as to the finality of the orders of school authorities.

In the case of Moreau et al., School Trustees v. Grandich et ux., 114 Miss. 560, 75 So. 434, the Court pointed out that an appeal under the school laws is not a judicial determination; that trustees are administrative bodies and are not judicial officers and do not exercise judicial functions; and while appeals lie from the decision of the trustees to the county superintendent, and from the superintendent to the state board of education, these appeals deal with administrative matters and do not constitute res judicata.

It is a general rule of law, the Legislature will not delegate the power to decide legal questions to administrative officers. 12 Am.Jur., Constitutional Law, Sec. 576, p. 272; People of the State of Illinois v. Belcastro, 356 Ill. 144, 190 N.E. 301, 92 A.L.R. 1223. In the case of McCulloch et al. v. Stone, Auditor, 64 Miss. 378, 8 So. 236, where a petition was filed seeking a writ of mandamus requiring the auditor to give the petitioners a deed, the auditor refused on the ground that his decision in the matter was...

To continue reading

Request your trial
17 cases
  • Tunica Cnty. v. Town of Tunica, 2015-CA-01183-SCT.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • May 11, 2017
    ...school district). This fact was acknowledged in Board of Education of Benton County v. State Educational Finance Commission , 243 Miss. 782, 138 So.2d 912, 924 (1962), in which the Court was asked to review the constitutionality of private legislation setting the procedure for challenging s......
  • Burrell v. Mississippi State Tax Com'n, 58054
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • August 10, 1988
    ...added] Jackson Redevelopment Authority v. King, Inc., 364 So.2d 1104, 1107-08 (Miss.1978); Board of Education v. State Educational Finance Commission, 243 Miss. 782, 814, 138 So.2d 912, 926 (1962). See also Comment, General Special, Local and Private Legislation: A Mississippi Overview, 56 ......
  • Pascagoula Sch. Dist. v. Tucker
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • July 19, 2012
    ...Valley Water Supply Dis., 865 So.2d 357, 360 (Miss.2004); see generally Bd. of Educ. of Benton County v. State of Educ. Fin. Comm'n, 243 Miss. 782, 138 So.2d 912, 924–25 (1962) (reviewing a constitutional issue raised for first time on appeal and requesting additional briefs on that issue).......
  • Pascagoula Sch. Dist. v. Tucker, 2010-CA-00955-SCT
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • April 12, 2012
    ...Valley Water Supply Dis., 865 So. 2d 357, 360 (Miss. 2004); see generally Bd. of Educ. of Benton County v. State of Educ. Fin. Comm'n, 138 So. 2d 912, 924-25 (Miss. 1962) (reviewing a constitutional issue raised for first time on appeal and requesting additional briefs on that issue). ¶11. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT