Hawkins v. City of West Point
| Decision Date | 14 October 1946 |
| Docket Number | 36169. |
| Citation | 27 So.2d 549,200 Miss. 616 |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Parties | HAWKINS v. CITY OF WEST POINT. |
Frank Critz and B. H. Loving, both of West Point for appellant.
Thos. J. Tubb, of West Point, for appellee.
The City of West Point in this State operates under a special municipal charter granted by the Legislature by Chapter 148, Laws 1892, approved March 23, 1892. Appellant Hawkins is the former owner of the city lot involved in this suit. The lot was sold to the city for the delinquent city taxes thereon for the year 1931. The bill is by the city to confirm its tax title against the appellant, in defense of which appellant answered assigning various reasons why, as he says, the tax title was not good, and he has argued 10 of such alleged grounds on this appeal. There are two principal grounds as follows:
In the third subparagraph of Section 19 of the special charter of the city it is required of the governing authorities, by ordinance,--'To fix some day, not less than thirty days after the time fixed for the completion of such assessment to hear objection to the assessments, which objections shall be made in writing, and to examine the same and to give notice, by publication in some newspaper published in said city, or by posting notices in three or more public places in said city, of the time and place fixed for such hearing and examination, and at such time and place they shall hear all objections, and shall have power to approve, change or correct, increase or dminish, such assessment as shall be proper', etc.
It is admitted that before May 20, 1931, no order appears on the minutes fixing a time for the hearing of objections, but on the minutes of that day there appears the following 'There came on for consideration and hearing before the Board the matter of equalizing the assessment of real and personal property made by the City Tax Assessor on the property in the City of West Point for the year 1931, and this date having heretofore been duly fixed as the day for hearing objections tosaid assessment rolls, the publication and advertisement having been duly made to all of the taxpayers of said city for thirty (30) days prior to this date to present their objections to said rolls on or before May 19, 1931, and said Board having heard and considered all objections duly made and filed * * *.' An ordinance which had been in effect 10 years fixed the time of the regular monthly meetings of the city council for the second Tuesday of each month, and from day to day thereafter. This for May 1931 would be the 12th. On that day the minutes show that the Mayor and Board of Aldermen met, and among the orders adopted was the following: 'This regular meeting stands continued to meet again at 7:30 P. M. Tuesday night May 19th 1931.'
It is the contention of appellant that the making of the order mentioned by the statute fixing the time for hearing objections to the assessment is jurisdictional; and that the fact that no such order appears on the minutes is conclusive that it was not made,--that the recital in the minutes of May 20, 1931, above quoted is thus proved to be untrue. No authority is cited by appellant to the effect that, when the minutes of a municipality recite that a previous order was made, the fact that no such order can be found on the previous minutes is conclusive that no such previous order was actually made; and upon a reasonably diligent search we have not been able to find such case precisely in point.
It is beyond doubt the rule, and it is well settled, that the minutes of a municipality import verity and that evidence will not be received in a collateral action to vary or contradict such record when regular and complete on its face. See 37 Am.Jur. p. 677, and the many cases gathered in the notes to Campbell v. Hackensack, 115 N.J.L. 209, 178 A. 794, 98 A.L.R. at p. 1229 et seq. To preserve the integrity of that rule it must be presumed in the light of the quoted recitals of the minutes of May 20, 1931, that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ballard v. Smith
...in the proceedings of the board enacting the ordinance, we do not think it has the effect of invalidating it. Hawkins v. City of West Point, 1946, 200 Miss. 616, 27 So.2d 549; Walker v. City of Biloxi, Miss.1957, 92 So.2d The undisputed evidence also reflects that the map offered in evidenc......
-
BOARD OF EDUC. OF CALHOUN COUNTY v. Warner
...that the order appointing appraisers "was in fact made but that by some inadvertence it failed to be recorded." Hawkins v. City of West Point, , 27 So.2d 549, 550. Foster v. Jefferson County, 202 Miss. 629, 637, 32 So.2d 126, 129 (1947) (holding that absence of order appointing appraisers i......
-
Hill v. London, Stetelman, and Kirkwood, Inc.
...will not be received ... to vary or contradict such record when regular and complete on its face." Hawkins v. City of West Point, 200 Miss. 616, 27 So.2d 549, 550 (1946) (en banc); see also 5 E. McQuillin, Sec. 14.05. Second, the Mississippi Supreme Court has cited McQuillin, supra, approvi......
-
J. S. Love Co. v. Town of Carthage
...the municipality, would most advantageously effect it. Appellants further invoked the rule announced in the case of Hawkins v. City of West Point, 200 Miss. 616, 27 So.2d 549, to the effect that in the exercise of such powers the municipality has the choice of the means adapted to the end a......