Broom v. Board of Sup'rs of Jefferson Davis County

• Decision Date: 17 December 1934
• Docket Number: 31525
• Citation: 158 So. 344,171 Miss. 586
• Parties: BROOM et al. v. BOARD OF SUP'RS OF JEFFERSON DAVIS COUNTY
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court

158 So. 344

171 Miss. 586

BROOM et al. v. BOARD OF SUP'RS OF JEFFERSON DAVIS COUNTY

No. 31525

Supreme Court of Mississippi

December 17, 1934

Division B

1 COURTS.

Court has primary duty before proceeding in any case to see that it has jurisdiction both of subject-matter and of parties.

2 COURTS.

When court of general jurisdiction has proceeded with case, it will be presumed that court ascertained that it had jurisdiction, and no special adjudication thereof on minutes of court is required.

3. COURTS.

No presumption is indulged in favor of jurisdiction of tribunals of special and limited jurisdiction, but such tribunal must before proceeding determine whether it has jurisdiction and enter upon its minutes affirmative recitals to effect that tribunal has found that facts essential to exercise of jurisdiction exist.

4. SCHOOLS AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS.

Board of supervisors is tribunal of special and limited jurisdiction in matter of issuance of bonds of school district, and, before board is authorized to proceed with such bond issue, board must adjudicate jurisdictional facts which adjudication can be evidenced only by its minutes (Laws 1932, chapter 235, section 6).

5. SCHOOLS AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS.

Jurisdictional facts which must be adjudicated by board of supervisors before it can proceed with issuance of bonds for school district are that petition has been presented to board for issuance of bonds fixing maximum amount thereof and signed by twenty per cent. of qualified electors of district, that purposes for which bonds are to be issued are authorized by law, and that bonds will not impose upon any property in district indebtedness for school purposes of more than ten per cent. of its assessed value (Laws 1932, chapter 235, section 6).

6. SCHOOLS AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS.

Board of supervisors, which failed to adjudicate jurisdictional fact that proposed bonds would not impose upon any of property in district indebtedness for school purposes of more than ten percent. of assessed value of property and to enter such fact upon its minutes, had no jurisdiction to order election upon proposed bond issue, and hence curative order adjudicating jurisdictional fact after election was ineffectual to give board jurisdiction (Laws 1932, chapter 235, section 6).

7. SCHOOLS AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS.

Qualified elector of school district had right, before voting on proposed bond issue, to be officially informed that it would not exceed limitations prescribed by law, which information could be conveyed only by adjudication of board of supervisors entered on its minutes (Laws 1932, chapter 235, section 6).

HON. HARVEY McGEHEE, Judge.

APPEAL from the circuit court of Jefferson Davis county HON. HARVEY McGEHEE, Judge.

Proceeding by E. R. Broom and others against the Board of Supervisors of Jefferson Davis county, to review an order of the Board of Supervisors directing the issuance of certain bonds. From an adverse judgment, E. R. Broom and others appeal. Reversed and dismissed.

Reversed and dismissed.

Martin & Berry, of New Hebron, for appellants.

The board of supervisors in this bond matter was acting as a court of special and limited jurisdiction and every jurisdictional fact must affirmatively appear of record on their minutes.

Boutwell v. Board of Supervisors, 128 Miss. 337, 91 So. 12; Adams v. Bank, 103 Miss. 744, 60 So. 770.

The power to subject property to taxation is stricti juris.

114 Miss. 537.

Procedure for authorizing bonds is to be strictly construed.

Johnson v. Yazoo Co., 113 Miss. 435, 74 So. 321.

A void judgment may be assailed anywhere.

93 Miss. 215.

The court below was in error in holding and deciding that the final order of the board of supervisors adjudicated the necessary jurisdictional facts as required under section 6, chapter 235, Laws of 1932.

Board of Supervisors v. Ottley, 146 Miss. 118, 109 So. 851; West et al. v. Mayor of Waynesboro, 152 Miss. 443, 119 So. 809; Gilbert et al. v. Scarborough et al., 159 Miss. 679, 131 So. 876; Lumber Co. v. Jefferson Davis County, 133 Miss. 229, 97 So. 545; Chapter 235, section 6, Laws of 1932; Johnson v. Yazoo Co., 113 Miss. 435, 74 So. 321; Boutwell v. Board of Supervisors, 128 Miss. 337, 91 So. 12; Board of Svpervisors v. Clark, 163 Miss. 120, 140 So. 733.

The board went beyond the calls of the petition and their orders are void.

Supervisors v. Clark, 163 Miss. 120, 140 So. 733; Bryant v. Board of Supervisors, 133 Miss. 714, 98 So. 148; Borroum v. Purdy Road District, 131 Miss. 778, 95 So. 677; Board v. Weatherford, 114 Miss. 270; Insurance Co. v. Fire Ins. Co., 113 Miss. 545; Cuevas v. Cuevas, 145 Miss. 456, 110 So. 865; 3 C. J., pp. 177-8.

There was no description of the territory of the Carson consolidated school district anywhere in any of the proceedings.

Carter v. Board of Supervisors, 131 Miss. 127, 95 So. 306; Pearce v. Mantachie District, 134 Miss. 497, 99 So. 134; Monroe County v. Mingo, 127 Miss. 702, 90 So. 443; Board of Supervisors v. Ottley, 146 Miss. 118, 109 So. 851; Yellowly v. Beardsley, 76 Miss. 613.

The order calling for the election does not adjudicate the fact that twenty per cent of the qualified electors signing the petition were residents of the Carson school district at the time of the last election held in Jefferson Davis county and qualified to vote in the Carson district at that time.

Chapter 197, Laws of 1932; Section 5978, Code of 1930.

The statute requires three things on the back and only three: "Official ballot," the name of the election district or place for which the ballot is prepared and the date of the election.

Perkins v. Carraway, 59 Miss. 222; Keller v. Toulme, 7 So. 508; Oglesby v. Sigman, 58 Miss. 502; McKenzie v. Boykin, 111 Miss. 256, 71 So. 382; State ex rel. Rogers et al. v. Sweat, 152 So. 432.

The board did not comply with the statutory requirements under chapter 197, Laws of 1932.

Nowhere in the whole proceedings is there any adjudication that this bond issue was necessary and proper and would serve a public benefit.

Stone v. Consolidated School District, 161 Miss. 537, 137 So. 332.

Livingston & Milloy, of Prentiss, for appellee.

The adjudication of the board states definitely and certainly that the bonds are issued under and pursuant to all laws governing school bond issues and the finding of the board is that the ten per cent limit placed by law will not be exceeded in any particular or on any property in the school district, and is therefore conclusive in favor of the validity of the bond issue. This is the interpretation placed on the order by the trial court below, and we submit that no error was committed by the court below in this interpretation of the order of the board and the law.

Rogers et al. v. Board of Supervisors of Union County, 114 Miss. 326, 75 So. 123; Board of Supervisors of Lowndes County v. Ottley et al., 146 Miss. 118, 112 So. 466.

In the case at bar the board of supervisors did make the proper adjudication of this jurisdictional fact.

It is manifest that the bonds were issued under section 5983 as amended by said chapter 197, and under all other amendatory and the laws applicable to school bond issues.

Where county bonds reciting that they were issued in conformity of the law and refer to the wrong statute, this will not render them void, as long as ample authority is found elsewhere under the statutes in force at the time of issuance which have been substantially complied with, but this rule does not apply where the official records show proceedings not in conformity with the act authorizing the issuance, and the recitals of the bonds themselves exclude the possibility that they were issued under such acts.

15 C. J., p. 623, sec. 335.

This court held in the case of Noxubee County v. Long, 106 So. 83, that the minutes of boards of supervisors reciting their orders and judgments, like those of justices of the peace, will be looked upon with indulgence.

Although they may be unskillfully drawn, if by a fair and reasonable interpretation their meaning can be ascertained, they will be sufficient to answer the requirements of law.

The ballot was prepared under chapter 197, Laws of 1932, and the statute was strictly followed in the writing of the ballot.

Section 311, Code of 1930.

The official ballot used in this election was sufficient in every particular and in full accordance with the statute.

Section 329, p. 618, 15 C. J.

Argued orally by Martin & Berry, for appellant, and by W. H. Livingston, for appellee.

OPINION

Griffith, J.

At the February, 1934, term of the board of supervisors of Jefferson. Davis county, a petition was presented signed by more than twenty per centum of the qualified electors of the Carson Consolidate School District, praying that the statutory steps be taken by the board for the issuance of fifteen thousand dollars of bonds of the school district for the purpose of building and equipping an auditorium and classrooms, in addition to the existing school building in said district. The board examined the petition and entered an order adjudicating the fact that it had been signed by more than the required twenty per centum of the qualified electors of the district, and the board directed that an election be held in the district on March 3, 1934.

The election was held and resulted favorably to the bond issue, and the result having been certified as required by law, the board, at its ...