Board of Sup'rs of forrest County v. Clark

Decision Date11 April 1932
Docket Number29933
PartiesBOARD OF SUP'RS OF FORREST COUNTY v. CLARK et al
CourtMississippi Supreme Court

Division B

1. SCHOOLS AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS. Petition for bond issue of consolidated school district and notice of election thereon stating purpose to include "furnishing... necessary school supplies," held to render bonds illegal (Code 1930, section 6643).

Petition for bond issue of consolidated school district, and notice of election thereon, stated purposes of bond issue to be for "rebuilding, remodelling and repairing the present school building and teachers' home,... and for the purpose of equipping said school building and furnishing same with all necessary school supplies." Code 1930, section 6643, in substance, authorizes bond issue to "erect, repair, and equip school buildings teachers' home, school barns, transportation vehicles and for purchasing lands for schools...."

2. SCHOOLS AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS.

Proceedings for issuance of bonds of consolidated school district should clearly show purposes, and with such certainty that issuance will be wholly within statutory power (Code 1930, section 6643).

3. SCHOOLS AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS.

Notice of election on bond issue for consolidated school district must accurately state purpose thereof (Code 1930, section 6643).

HON. W. J. PACK, Judge.

APPEAL from circuit court of Forrest county, HON. W. J. PACK, Judge.

Proceedings before the board of supervisors of Forrest county for the issuance of bonds for the Eatonville Consolidated School District. From certain orders and resolutions entered by the Board of Supervisors, A. O. Clark and others, taxpayers and patrons, appealed to the circuit court. From a judgment of the circuit court holding the bonds invalid, the Board of Supervisors appeals. Affirmed.

Affirmed.

Geo. W. and E. J. Currie and C. E. Hill, all of Hattiesburg, for appellant.

The statute authorizes issuance of bonds "to erect, repair and equip school buildings, teachers' homes, school barns, transportation vehicles, and for purchasing lands for schools." Such statutes are in the interest of public improvements, and should be liberally construed.

Thomason v. Court of County Commissioners, 63 So. 87.

The language of the petition, and particularly the language of the order of the Board of Supervisors, demonstrate the practical purpose involved, and the adding of the clause "and furnishing same with all necessary school supplies" is either harmless surplusage or it is included in the description of the word "equipment." If the word "equipment" is intended to mean some stable or permanent utility, the context shows that the word "furnishing" is used in the same sense.

The filing of any petition is not jurisdictional, but even if it is jurisdictional, the duty to order the election imposed by the filing of the petition may contain unnecessary recital, nor is the power conferred by it lost by reason of the fact that the Board in ordering the election submits only a part of the questions named therein.

15 Corpus Juris, page 617, section 328.

In submitting a proposed county bond issue to the voters, it is sufficient if there is a substantial compliance with statutory requirements as to the making of the order and the contents of the order and ballot; and if the required statements are made in general terms, without going into details. An unnecessary statement of certain matters in a proposition submitted to the voters will not invalidate, where the submission is otherwise sufficient.

15 Corpus Juris, 618, 619, section 329.

The courts generally adopt a liberal construction in dealing with statutory requirements respecting petitions and notices for elections for public betterments, and hold that a substantial compliance is sufficient, especially where there is nothing to indicate that the result of the election would have been different had the notice been in strict compliance with statutory requirements.

15 Corpus Juris, pages 619-620, section 330.

The phrase "constructing public roads" is used in our statute in its most comprehensive sense, and it does not mean merely the building of roads not before having existence, but it means the maintenance and betterment of roads already in existence, thus demonstrating that the court adopts a liberal construction of stautes intended for public improvement.

54 So. 307.

The issuance of the bonds is one thing, and the spending of the money derived therefrom is another and different matter altogether.

Keaton v. Board of Supervisors of Clarke County, 77 So. 906.

The phrase "furnishing the same with all necessary school supplies" is surplusage.

Board of Supervisors of De Soto County v. Dean, 82 So. 257; Welborn v. Board of Supervisors of Jones County, 94 So. 224.

The word "equipment" usually means whatever is used in equipping, and it is generally applied to movable, and not immovable property, and it unmistakably shows that the use of the words "furnishing" and "supplies" is in strict accord with the statutory meaning of the word "equipment."

Y. D. Lumber Company v. Refuge Cotton Oil Co., 120 So. 447.

The word "supplies" is to be construed in the light of the circumstances of each particular case.

Wright v. Walton, 56 Miss. 1.

John R. Tally, of Hattiesburg, for appellees.

The use of the conjunction "and," immediately preceding the phrase in question, indicates the purpose, in addition to the purpose immediately preceding; that is, equipping the school building and by the use of the word "all," further indicates that it does not refer merely to that character of supplies which would form a part of the permanent equipment, but embraces all supplies which are necessary.

Disinfectants for courthouses and jails fall within the terms "supplies for public buildings."

American Disinfecting Company v. Oktibbeha County, 110 So. 869.

For a definition of "equipment" as distinguished from materials, see McElrath & Rogers v. W. G. Kimmons & Sons, 146 Miss. 775, 112 So. 165; Standard Oil Company v. National Surety Co., 143 Miss. 841, 107 So. 559; United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company v. Yazoo County, 110 So. 780.

"Equipping" providing that vessels running on any navigable waters of the state shall be liable for all debts contracted by the owners in equipping such boats or vessels, did not mean such articles as might be daily consumed and constantly replaced, but such as went towards the building, repairing, fitting or equipping the vessel."

3 Words & Phrases, First Series, page 2432.

For a distinction between "supplies" and "equipment."

Standard Boiler Works v. National Surety Company, 71 Wash. 28, 43 L.R.A. (N.S.) 162, 127 P. 573.

The word "supplies" as applied to a vessel, means those articles which a boat may find to be necessary for consumption and use on a voyage.

Gibbons v. The C. J. Caffrey, 40 Mo. 257-59; 8 Words and Phrases, First Series, page 6802.

Under the statute attempted to be followed in this case, the presentation of a petition, signed by a majority of the qualified electors, was jurisdictional prerequisite to any action being taken by the Board. Being jurisdictional, it necessarily follows that the petition must conform to the statute.

Section 110, Chapter 283, Laws of 1924; Lamb v. Morgan, 120 So. 745.

A school district has such power, and such only, as is conferred upon it by an act of the legislature, either expressly or by necessary implication to issue bonds for school purposes, as for the purpose of borrowing money, or for the purpose of raising money to build or provide school houses or sites and furnish the same; and bonds issued without such authority or for an unauthorized purpose are void even in the hands of innocent persons.

35 Cyc. page 988.

If some of the purposes for which the bonds are proposed to be issued are legal and some are illegal, this renders the bonds void.

Applegate v. Board of Education, 33 A. 923.

OPINION

Anderson, J.

Appellees, who are taxpayers and patrons of the Eatonville consolidated school, appealed to the circuit court from certain orders and resolutions entered by the board of supervisors upon their minutes providing for the issuance of twenty-five thousand dollars of bonds of the Eatonville consolidated school district. Appellees attacked the legality of the bonds. The circuit court held the bonds invalid. From that judgment of the circuit court, the appellant prosecutes this appeal.

Many of the taxpayers and patrons of the Eatonville consolidated school district filed with the board of supervisors of Forrest county on the first Monday of March, 1931, a petition asking the board for the issuance of twenty-five thousand dollars of bonds of said district. The petition stated the purposes for which the bonds were desired in this language: "Shall be issued for the purpose of rebuilding, remodeling and repairing the present school building and teachers' home situated in said district, and for the further purpose of equipping said school building and furnishing the same with all necessary school supplies."

Section 6643, Code of 1930, provides as follows: "On petition of the majority of the qualified electors residing in a consolidated school district, the board of supervisors may issue bonds for such consolidated...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Keeton v. State
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • April 6, 1936
    ... ... APPEAL ... from circuit court of Jones county ... (In ... 1 ... CRIMINAL LAW ... M. Stevens, Jr., both of Jackson, and ... Frank Clark, of Waynesboro, for appellant ... Our ... ...
  • Rawlings v. Ladner
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • February 3, 1936
    ... ... APPEAL ... from the chancery court of Forrest county HON. BEN STEVENS, ... Chancellor ... of 1920, is necessary to confer jurisdiction upon the board ... of supervisors to equalize and approve the assessment ... 443; ... Board of Supervisors of Forrest County v. Clark, 163 ... Miss. 120, 140 So. 733; City of Jackson v ... ...
  • Garraway v. State ex rel. Dale
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • January 23, 1939
    ...submit that Mr. Garraway took his appeal in strict compliance with Sections 78, 79, 80 and 2323, Code of 1930. Forrest County v. Clark, 163 Miss. 120, 140 So. 733. submit that the statute is not subject to construction. It is plain and unambiguous. It simply says that the taxpayer has the r......
  • Broom v. Board of Sup'rs of Jefferson Davis County
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • December 17, 1934
    ... ... Board of ... Supervisors, 128 Miss. 337, 91 So. 12; Board of ... Svpervisors v. Clark, 163 Miss. 120, 140 So. 733. [171 Miss ... The ... board went beyond the calls of the ... ...
  • 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