Forbes v. City of Meridian
Decision Date | 19 June 1905 |
Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Parties | WILLIAM H. FORBES ET AL. v. CITY OF MERIDIAN |
FROM the circuit court of Lauderdale county, HON. ROBERT F COCHRAN, Judge.
Forbes and others, appellants, who opposed the extension of the limits of the city of Meridian, were treated without objection as being plaintiffs in the court below, and the city of Meridian accepted there the position of a defendant. From a judgment in the city's favor Forbes and others appealed to the supreme court. [See Jackson v Whiting, 84 Miss. 163, where under like conditions the city of Jackson was treated as plaintiff and her tender of issue as a plaintiff maintained by the supreme court.]
The municipal authorities of the city of Meridian passed an ordinance extending the limits of said city. Appellants Forbes and others, made bond and appealed to the circuit court from the ordinance. In the circuit court appellants tendered an issue that the extension was unjust, oppressive and unreasonable in various particulars--to wit, that a large territory just outside of and contiguous to the territory embraced had been surveyed into lots and blocks, and residences had been built there, and a large number of people lived there, and that these Jots were valuable, and that the extension was unreasonable in not including that territory that some parts included in the extension had never been surveyed into lots, and were two miles from the business part of the city, and could not be benefited by being placed in the city; that other portions embraced had no dwellings or business houses on them, and would receive no benefits or protection from the city government; and that the only purpose the city had in including them was to tax them. On this tender the city, without objection, joined issue, and considerable testimony was heard on the trial of the issue. There were verdict and judgment for the city, and from that this appeal is taken. The errors principally complained of are the giving of certain instructions for the city and the refusal of instructions asked by appellants.
The court gave the following instructions for the city:
In the sixth instruction the court told the jury that if the lands embraced in the ordinance were contiguous to the city, and some of them were platted and mapped and held for sale, and that other parts of the land were settled and represented the actual growth of the city, and that other vacant lands were needed for residences, and that other parts of said lands were valuable for residences or business purposes, or if the territory added was needed for the extension of police regulations, the jury should find for the city.
The court refused the following instructions asked by appellants:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Kansas City
...including territory. Parker v. Zeisler, 73 Mo. App. 537; New Orleans & N. W. R. R. Co. v. Vidalia, 117 La. 561, 42 South. 139; Forbes v. Meridian, 86 Miss. 243, 38 South. 676; Catterlin v. Frankfort, 87 Ind. 45; Paul v. Walkerton, 150 Ind. 565, 50 N. E. 725; Langworthy v. Dubuque, 13 Iowa, ......
-
Boise City v. Boise City Development Co., Ltd.
... ... [238 P. 1012] ... regulations to the public health decrease the danger from ... disease and pestilence." ( Forbes v. Mayor etc. of ... City of Meridian, 86 Miss. 243, 38 So. 676.) ... "As ... has already been said, the principal objection to the ... ...
-
Extension of Boundaries of City of Jackson, Matter of, 58267
...share of taxes, Texas Gas Transmission Corp. v. City of Greenville, 242 So.2d 686, 689 (Miss.1971); Forbes v. Mayor & Board of Aldermen of City of Meridian, 86 Miss. 243, 38 So. 676 (1905); and (12) any other factors that may suggest reasonableness vel non. Bassett v. Town of Taylorsville, ......
-
Portland General Elec. Co. v. City of Estacada
... ... Forbes v. Meridian, 86 Miss. 243, 38 So. 676, 678, declared: '* * * Municipalities are not devised for the purpose solely, nor chiefly, of raising revenue ... ...