Gore v. Doolittle

• Decision Date: 23 April 1900
• Citation: 77 Miss. 620,27 So. 997
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: WILSON W. GORE ET AL. v. SAMUEL C. DOOLITTLE ET AL

27 So. 997

77 Miss. 620

WILSON W. GORE ET AL. v. SAMUEL C. DOOLITTLE ET AL

Supreme Court of Mississippi

April 23, 1900

March 1900

FROM the circuit court of Webster county, HON. WILLIAM F. STEVENS Judge.

Doolittle and others, the appellees, began this controversy by a petition to the board of supervisors asking that proceedings be had by the board to establish a part of the county into a stock law district, under code 1892, § 2056, as amended by Laws 1894, p. 48, and Laws 1897, p. 21.

The section of the code, as so amended, so far as relates to the subject-matter of the suit, is quoted in the opinion of the court.

Gore and others, appellants, appeared before the board of supervisors and opposed the petition. The controversy was heard upon an agreed state of facts, it being admitted, among other things, that the proposed stock law district was shaped and included the lands as shown by the plat, and that it was so laid off and shaped purposely to leave out of said district those persons who oppose the stock law.

The stock law district sought by the petition was shaped, and embraced the lands, as shown in the following map or diagram:

[SEE DIAGRAM IN ORIGINAL]

PROPOSED STOCK LAW DISTRICT.

The board of supervisors denied the prayer of the petition placing the denial on the ground that "the shape of the proposed stock law district . . . was not such as is contemplated by law." From this decision Doolittle and others, petitioners, now appellees, appealed to the circuit court.

The case was heard in the circuit court on the agreed state of facts, and that court reversed the judgment of the board of supervisors. From the circuit court judgment Gore and others appellants, appealed to the supreme court.

Judgment reversed and case remanded.

Sam Cooke, for appellants.

The shape of the district as shown of record condemns it. It violates all reason, justice and common sense. It is grotesquely irregular, and it is an admitted fact that it was made so for the purpose of excluding those persons who oppose the stock law, and of including those who favor it. This admission condemns the scheme of Doolittle and others, the petitioners. If the scheme succeeds, the very purpose of the law will be violated, and the majority placed at the mercy of the minority. By "cutting out" those opposed to the law, a so-called majority was of course obtained, but it was not a majority within the contemplation of the statute. Think of the position of a person thus cut out, and whose farm is nearly surrounded by the proposed stock law district. If he allows his cattle to wander at large, and they go over into the proposed district, they can there be taken up and impounded. Without being in the district literally, therefore, the person whose farm is so located, nevertheless has to keep up his stock as if he were in the district. The number of persons "cut out" is unknown of course, but that is the point to the scheme. The circuit judge "stuck in the bark, " and failed to take the common sense and practical view of the matter which the supervisors took. The appellants are confident that this court will not be caught in the "snare, " but will, like the supervisors, throttle the wrong.

William P. Pope, for appellees.

Under the statute only two things have to exist in order to entitle petitioners to have the stock law district established. (1) Two-thirds of the people having a right to be heard must join in the petition, and (2) the district must embrace an area equal to thirty-six square miles. Both of these prerequisites exist in this case.

The statute leaves nothing, the two prerequisites existing, to the discretion of the board of supervisors; it says nothing about the shape of the district. Of course if the legislature had intended to authorize the rejection of a petition on account of irregular shape, there would be found some...