Du Bose v. Cranford
| Decision Date | 02 April 1923 |
| Docket Number | 23357 |
| Citation | 131 Miss. 770,95 So. 676 |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Parties | DU BOSE et al., BOARD OF SUPERVISORS v. CRANFORD |
COUNTIES. Budget Law requires only general statement of revenues and expenses under each particular fund; particular officers payable out of budget need not be set out therein.
Sections 1 and 2 of chapter 2S5, Laws of 1922, known as the "Budget Law," requires a general statement of the revenues and expenses of the county under each particular fund or purpose, and not specific items and details. It is sufficient if the budget as made and published show the estimates in gross for each particular purpose, without setting out the details of such expenses; and, where the budget shows a gross sum for salaries and fees of county officers, it is sufficient, and the particular officers payable out of such fund need not be set out.
APPEAL from circuit court of Jones county, HON. R. S. HALL, Judge.
Petition by Dr. W. S. Cranford against B. Du Bose, and others constituting the Board of Supervisors of Jones County, for mandamus. From a judgment in favor of petitioner, defendants appeal. Affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
G. W Hosey and Ellis B. Cooper, for appellant.
The question at the threshold of this case relates to the contents of the budget. In other words, we have here a case where the total of the estimate for salaries includes the salary of the county health officer now held by the appellee, but in the itemization thereof appellee's office is entirely omitted. Will the budget in this case prevent the payment of appellee? To state the question in another way, Does the budget have to show each item of salary or will it suffice if it shows the total sum estimated for the payment of the salaries which fall due during the ensuing year? If the answer to the question is that it must not only show the amount to be paid in salaries but that it must also name the office which is to receive a portion of the total estimate, then this case must be affirmed. The solution of the question will be found necessarily in the terms of the act itself.
Section 1 of the act in question provides that at the September meeting each year a budget shall be prepared showing the 'county expenses estimated for the next year.' It provides that a statement showing the aggregate revenue collected during the current year together with the sources of the revenue. Section 2 provides that the budget shall be in such form as may be necessary to show all estimates of expenditure and sources of revenue.
The court will note that up to this point a great deal is left to the discretion of the different boards in the preparation of the budget. There is nothing said except that the form shall be such as shall be necessary to show all estimates of expenditure for county purposes. Section 3 of that act designates how books shall be kept by the clerks of the boards. The obvious purpose of the methods designated is that the books will immediately show whether the expenditure has been within or without the estimate of the budget.
Section 4 is simply an admonition to the boards to lessen the expenditures and a requirement that they keep within the annual revenue. Section 5 provides for emergencies. The court will note that no provision is found for mistakes and errors in the preparation of the budget. Only certain emergencies are treated and these are those caused by storm or disease. By well-settled rules of construction the emergencies herein dealt with may not be extended to any other emergencies. For here the term "like conditions unforseen," are used. Certainly in the present case there are no conditions similar to the ones referred to and certainly it may not be said that this is unforseen.
Section 6 throws more light on what the framers of the law intended that the budget should show than any other portion thereof. This section clearly shows that it was the intention of the legislature that the budget should be itemized. The section provides that the taxpayers may petition against, "any of items of proposed expenditure." It provides that when a petition is filed it shall be unlawful to impose any taxation "based on such items," other than taxes for payment of interest or installments on bonds, unless the question is submitted to the electorate and favorably voted on. The court will note that the term "item" is specifically mentioned and the law-making body goes further in showing that the term is carefully used and carefully chosen by excepting certain items from the vast mass of items that the budget will show.
From section 6 may be gathered the only light on this subject. It cannot be disputed that the board of supervisors could in its budget have a general head entitled "salaries." It could under this head place the total estimate for the salaries without mention of the offices to which the salaries are payable. In that event the board might easily and without penalty cover all of the officers of the county within the limits set by the estimate. It might allow for officers voted in after the publication of the budget, such as a county attorney, a county demonstration agent, a home economics agent, etc.
But is this the scheme in the legislative mind at the time of the preparation and enactment of the bill in question? We submit that it is not. Why should the legislature in section 6 specify "items" and then expressly except certain items from the operation of the law? The very exceptions themselves indicate that the legislature intended a detailed itemization of proposed expenditures. In other words, under the heading of "salaries" it is clear that the law-making power intended that the officers, to receive the salaries, should be specifically mentioned. Why should there be any provision for an election if the budget did not set out in detail the things to which the people might object? There would be no use. If the budget simply set out in separate heads "general purposes," "roads," "salaries," 'courts," etc., and then after each gave the estimated expenditure on that account, the provisions of section 6 would be absolutely useless.
This section clearly requires that the itemization must be made. Section 7 in providing the penalty for the violation of the act further emphasizes the fact that this chapter contemplates the itemization of the expenditures to be made. This condition is clearly found in the provisions that the members of the board voting for a claim not within the budget shall be liable on his bond for the full amount. And in providing this the law-making body provides liability for a claim allowed, a contract entered into, or public work provided for. Certainly, if the court will regard these words, it must hold that an itemization is contemplated. A claim not within the budget may not be paid.
It may be argued, however, that in the present case the question is brought up through error and that the total of the estimate includes the salary of the appellee. Yet we find in this chapter providing for the budget, no exception except those arising from storm or disease epidemic in form. Certainly the court will not write into the statute another exception covering instances of the sort now before the court.
It may be argued that the application of this act in the instant case will work the impairment of the obligations of a contract. But such is not the case. The contract now exists in its full integrity without the impairment of...
To continue reading
Request your trial