Jacobs v. Bodie

• Decision Date: 10 April 1950
• Docket Number: No. 37452,37452
• Citation: 208 Miss. 779,45 So.2d 587
• Parties: JACOBS v. BODIE et al.
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court

Page 587

45 So.2d 587

208 Miss. 779

JACOBS v. BODIE et al.

No. 37452.

Supreme Court of Mississippi, in Banc.

April 10, 1950.

J. B. Mayfield, Poplarville, for appellant.

Morse & Morse, Poplarville, for appellees.

SMITH, Justice.

This is a mandamus case. Sections 1109 et seq., Title 9, Chapter 1, Code 1942.

Appellant, according to the allegations of his petition, which must be taken as true on the general demurrer thereto, claimed that McNeill Consolidated School District owned him a balance of $5,197.39, under a contract to build an auditorium for $36,275, which he completed and on which he had been paid the sum of $31,077.61. It is further alleged that after his bid had been accepted by the trustees of the school, appellant complied with Sections 9014, 9015, and 9016, Code 1942. Appellant alleges that he constructed the auditorium according to the plans and specifications thereof, and during such construction, as the work progressed the trustees made allowances and issued 'Trustee Orders'. The declaration charges that all of the trustees, except one, now refuse to issue a 'Trustee Order' for this balance of $5,197,39, past due and owing, and that there were sufficient funds in the proper fund to pay the same. It is declared that the procedure was for the trustees of the School District to sign orders to the County Superintendent of Education, who would issue a certificate to the chancery clerk, which official then would issue appellant a warrant for the amount thereof, it being authority for the depository to pay the same. Appellant further avers that if the trustees would issue the 'Trustees' Order', then the other successive steps would be taken as a matter of routine, and he would receive the amount due him, but without such order neither of the other two officials, nor the depository could act.

Full payment has been made for all labor and materials used in the construction of the auditorium, but, it is alleged that the said trustees, except one, 'have and now arbitrarily refuse to do anything further and refuse to perform their official duty and refuse to sign and execute a trustees' order for the sum of $5,197.39, or any other sum, in payment to your petitioner, which said sum is due and past due, all of which it is the duty of the Said Trustees, the defendants named herein, so to do by virtue of the fact that they are the duly, elected, qualified and acting trustees of said School District and it is encumbent upon them in accordance with the allegations herein contained.'

The prayer of the petition is, in effect, that a writ of mandamus be granted to compel the trustees to issue a 'Trustee Order' as described, supra. We are not all in harmony on the issues thus presented. Two of the judges, including the author of this opinion, are doubtful of appellant's right to the writ, on the view that the issuing of such 'Trustee Order' is a judicial and not a ministerial act, since the claim therefor would require checking and auditing thereof, and involve discretion. Alex Loeb, Inc., v. Board of Trustees, Pearl River Junior College, 171 Miss. 467, 158 So. 333. Therefore, mandamus would not lie.

However, the majority of the judges are of the opinion that, under the allegations of the petition, it requires the performance of a mere ministerial act, since the total cost price of the contract is set forth together with the sum of all payments, and that a simple mathematical process of subtraction, definite and certain, demonstrates perfectly the amount due, and hence involves no judicial attributes or the exercise of any discretion. It is not necessary to cite authorities to the effect that...