Jagnandan v. Mississippi State University

Decision Date11 July 1979
Docket NumberNo. 51147,51147
Citation373 So.2d 252
PartiesRev. W. L. JAGNANDAN, Leonard S. Jagnandan and Edward R. Jagnandan v. MISSISSIPPI STATE UNIVERSITY, Dr. James D. McComas, Missippi Board of Trustees of Institutions of Higher Learning.
CourtMississippi Supreme Court

Mark Shenfield, Falls Church, Va., and Robert S. Catz, Cleveland-Marshall College of Law, Cleveland State University, Cleveland, Ohio, for appellants.

A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen. by Ed Davis Noble, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellees.

Before SMITH, SUGG and COFER, JJ.

COFER, Justice, for the Court:

Appellants W. L. Jagnandan, Leonard S. Jagnandan, and Edward R. Jagnandan brought suit against Mississippi State University, Dr. James D. McComas, its president and the Mississippi Board of Trustees of Institutions of Higher Learning, in the Chancery Court of Oktibbeha County to recover tuition amounts allegedly unconstitutionally charged against them as students of Mississippi State University (MSU).

The defendants, appellees, demurred generally to the Bill of Complaint on the grounds of sovereign immunity and res judicata. The chancellor sustained the demurrer and appellants have taken this appeal. We affirm the chancellor on the ground of immunity from suit and do not reach the res judicata ground.

The bill of complaint alleges that complainant W. L. Jagnandan and his sons, the other two complainants, moved to West Point in September 1969, at which time they were citizens of the Republic of Guyana, lawfully in this country as permanent resident aliens. Complainant's sons became MSU students in the fall 1970 term, and complainant W. L. Jagnandan enrolled therein as a special student in 1972. When the complainant's sons enrolled therein in 1970, the father undertook to procure recognition of his family as residents of this State for school tuition purposes, which undertaking was fruitless, and each was required to pay, and did pay, tuition charged on out-of-state students of the institution, an action taken under the mandate of Mississippi Code Annotated, section 37-103-23 (1972), providing that for purpose of charging tuition, in situations such as here involved, "All aliens are classified as nonresidents."

In January 1973 complainants filed suit in the United States District Court of the Northern District of Mississippi, challenging the constitutionality of the statute above mentioned, and on August 15, 1974, a three-judge federal court panel, assembled as required by statute, held that the complainants' rights of equal protection of the law and due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States were denied and therefore enjoined its future application. Jagnandan v. Giles, 379 F.Supp. 1178 (N.D.Miss.1974). In their said federal court suit, they also sought recovery of $3,495 (the amount here prayed) which they claimed MSU had unconstitutionally exacted of them, but that Court refrained from ordering reimbursement thereof under the prohibition of the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution, which prevents construction of the judicial power of the United States "to extend to any suit in law or equity commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or subjects of any Foreign State."

The defendants therein did not appeal from the District Court decision, supra, but the complainants appealed the denial of monetary relief and the circuit court affirmed the District Court. Jagnandan v. Giles, 538 F.2d 1166 (5th Cir. 1976). Certiorari was sought but was denied on June 20, 1977. Jagnandan v. Giles, 432 U.S. 910, 97 S.Ct. 2959, 53 L.Ed.2d 1083 (1977).

Accordingly, this suit was filed to undertake further, in a state court, to compel refund of the amount of the alleged overcharge of $3,495 as tuition.

Complainants' assignment of error pertinent to our decision is:

2. The Court below erred in holding this cause of action barred by sovereign immunity:

A. The Mississippi legislature has expressly consented to suits against Mississippi State University and its officials (the appellees);

B. Judicial relief is necessary to redress state and federal constitutional violations;

C. Where a remedy is provided for state constitutional violations, a state court cannot discriminate against the federal constitution by denying remedies for its violations;

D. Sovereign immunity must yield where necessary to enforce federal constitutional rights.

As quoted by the Jagnandans from Mississippi Centennial Exposition Co. v. Luderbach, 123 Miss. 828, 86 So. 517, 519 (1920):

It is familiar learning that the state and its subdivisions and agencies are not subject to suit unless made so by statute; and the statute, where a statute exists, is the measure of the power to sue such board or agency."

The case of Coleman v. Whipple, 191 Miss. 287, 2 So.2d 566 (1941), lays to rest the fact that the state institutions of higher learning are arms of, and that their property is owned by, the state.

The Act of February 28, 1844, by which the University of Mississippi was created, designated certain individuals as trustees and constituted them and their successors as a body politic to be known as "The University of Mississippi." Such trustees were not such as are defined by the law of trusts. They were the managing board or head of the university, and then and now constitute the University of Mississippi, created by the State through its Legislature, which, under its act of creation (Sec. 5) retains the right to repeal the entire act; its property is owned by the State and the university is an arm of the State, the State itself. State v. Vicksburg & N. R. R. Co., 51 Miss. 361, 365; Oklahoma, etc., College v. Willis, 6 Okl. 593, 52 P. 921, 40 L.R.A. 677; McDonald v. University of Kentucky, 225 Ky. 205, 7 S.W.2d 1046; University v. Maultsby, 43 N.C. 257; Trustees of University of Alabama v. Winston, ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • Presley v. Mississippi State Highway Com'n
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • 31 Agosto 1992
    ...v. University Medical Center, 380 So.2d 251 (Miss.1980); Jones v. Knight, 373 So.2d 254 (Miss.1979); Jagnandan v. Mississippi State University, 373 So.2d 252 (Miss.1979), cert. denied 444 U.S. 1026, 100 S.Ct. 690, 62 L.Ed.2d 660 reh'g denied, 448 U.S. 914, 101 S.Ct. 34, 65 L.Ed.2d 1177 (198......
  • Gulf Coast Research Lab. v. Amaraneni
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • 8 Octubre 1998
    ...(1994). ¶ 11. The Institutions of Higher Learning have consistently been held to be agents of the State. See Jagnandan v. Mississippi State Univ., 373 So.2d 252, 253 (Miss.1979), overruled on other grounds by Pruett v. City of Rosedale, 421 So.2d 1046 (Miss.1982); Bruner v. University of S.......
  • Karpovs v. State of Miss.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • 11 Diciembre 1981
    ...the specific type of claim asserted, "without which express grant no allowance to sue the state exists." Jagnandan v. Mississippi State University, 373 So.2d 252, 254 (Miss.1979) (citing State v. Woodruff, 170 Miss. 744, 766, 150 So. 760, 762 (1933) (emphasis in original)). MSHC is an agenc......
  • Washington v. Jackson State University
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Mississippi
    • 15 Marzo 2006
    ...& § 37-101-1 (1999). Both the Board and the University are agencies of the State for Eleventh Amendment purposes. Jagnandan v. Miss. St. Univ., 373 So.2d 252, 253 (Miss.1979) (holding that state institutions of higher learning are arms of the state). Therefore, plaintiffs suit against the e......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT