, Extension of the Boundaries of the City of Indianola, In re, 39945
| Decision Date | 13 February 1956 |
| Docket Number | No. 39945,39945 |
| Citation | 85 So.2d 212,226 Miss. 760 |
| Parties | In re EXTENSION OF the BOUNDARIES OF the CITY OF INDIANOLA. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Lyon, Davis & Price, Cooper & Harper, Indianola, for appellant.
Meill, Clark & Townsend, Indianola, for appellee.
This is an appeal from the Chancery Court of Sunflower County which approved an ordinance of the mayor and board of aldermen of the City of Indianola under and by virtue of the authority vested in the chancery court by Chapter 491, Laws of 1950. The decree appealed from expressly adjudged that 'such enlargement of the limits or boundaries of said City of Indianola is reasonable and is required by the public convenience and necessity. * * *.'
It appears that on June 30, 1954, the court had disapproved as unreasonable and as not being required by the public convenience and necessity a similar ordinance which provided for the extension of the corporate limits of the city so as to include approximately 370 acres of land, including practically all the three parcels of land sought to be included by the present proceeding, the three parcels now involved consisting of approximately 40 acres or less. No substantial change has occurred in the matter of improvements on the three parcels of land since the hearing of the former proceeding, but it was shown that although the City of Indianola has been without a sanitary sewerage system throughout the entire area of the city prior to the former proceeding, it has since that time issued bonds in the sum of $550,000, for the installation of a sanitary sewerage system in the existing corporate limits of the city and the municipal authorities intend to extend the system into the area proposed to be added and to pay for such extension beyond the present corporate limits out of funds other than the proceeds of the bond issue, in the event they are permitted to add the proposed additional territory. The fact that a municipal corporation would like to install a sanitary sewerage system in the territory to be added at the same time the same is being installed within the present corporate limits is not a sufficient ground for extending the city boundaries at the present time.
There is no substantial conflict in the testimony wherein it is shown that Area A has no residences, is largely farm lands, has no recently constructed buildings for the operation of new industries, and it has located thereon only about four business establishments; that Area B has only ten residences and no business houses, and none of these residences have been built since at some time prior to the former proceeding. This Area B is mostly farm land owned by Dr. B. H. Campbell on which there is no improvement, the farm land constituting only part of Area B; and that Area C has ten residences facing an improved public road.
At the conclusion of the evidence offered by the petitioner, mayor and board of aldermen, under the provisions of said Chapter 491, Laws of 1950, the petitioner made a motion for the trial judge to go and view the three areas proposed to be added. In response to this motion the chancellor stated that it would not be necessary that he do so, for the reason that he was familiar with the situation. It is stated in the brief of the appellant that the hearing had in June of 1954 consumed several days, and so far as we know the chancellor may have become familiar with these three areas at that time since they were involved in that proceeding. As an appellate court we cannot visualize the situation that he would have found if he had sustained the motion and had viewed the three parcels of land, having in view their respective locations. Nor can we discern what the chancellor had in mind in view of his familiarity with the three areas proposed to be added. The case is somewhat close as to the immediate urgency for these three parcels of land to be included within the corporate limits, and although the chancellor was not bound by the adjudication of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Enlargement of Boundaries of Yazoo City v. City of Yazoo City, 54956
...authorities to show that the proposed enlargement is reasonable, Sec. 21-1-33, Miss.Code 1972; Re Extension of Boundaries of the City of Indianola, 226 Miss. 760, 85 So.2d 212 (1956); Bridges v. Bilox [Biloxi] 253 Miss. 812, 178 So.2d 683 "In a proceeding under Sec. 21-1-33 the Chancery Cou......
-
Extension of Boundaries of City of Biloxi v. City of Biloxi
...and decree. There is no merit in this assignment, for the question was squarely faced in In Re Extension of the Boundaries of the City of Indianola, 226 Miss. 760, 85 So.2d 212 (1956). Thus faced therewith, this Court determined that there is no restriction or limitation on the right of the......
-
Dodd v. City of Jackson
...burden of proof was on the city to establish that the enlargement of its boundaries was reasonable. In re Extension of the Boundaries of the City of Indianola, 226 Miss. 760, 85 So.2d 212; Spears v. City of Oxford, 227 Miss. 801, 87 So.2d 61. Since the learned chancellor very properly exclu......
-
Extension of Boundaries of City of Ridgeland, Matter of, 52241
...To at least some extent, this merits consideration. In this regard our Supreme Court said in In Re Extension of the Boundaries of the City of Indianola, 226 Miss. 760, 85 So.2d 212 (1956): (A)lthough the Chancellor was not bound by the adjudication of the Mayor and Board of Aldermen that th......