Jones v. Belzoni Drainage District of Washington County

• Decision Date: 25 November 1912
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: L. B. JONES v. BELZONI DRAINAGE DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON COUNTY ET AL

59 So. 921

102 Miss. 796

L. B. JONES v. BELZONI DRAINAGE DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON COUNTY ET AL

Supreme Court of Mississippi

November 25, 1912

October 1912

APPEAL from the chancery court of Washington county, HON.W. N THOMAS, Chancellor.

Suit by L. B. Jones against the Belzoni Drainage District of Washington County, and others. From a judgment for defendants, complainant appeals.

The facts are fully stated in the opinion of the court.

Affirmed.

A. J Rose, for appellant.

W. S. Knotts and Wynn, Wasson & Wynn, for appellees.

No brief of counsel on either side found in the record.

OPINION

COOK, J.

This is a suit instituted in the chancery court of Washington county by a taxpayer of said county. The bill of complaint charges that chapter 195 of the Laws of 1912, entitled "An act to provide for the creation of drainage districts in the state of Mississippi," is unconstitutional, and prays for the issuance of an injunction against the drainage commissioners organized under said act to restrain said commissioners from assessing betterment taxes, or damages on lands embraced in said district, and from issuing or negotiating bonds, etc. The appellee drainage district was organized under the provisions of said chapter 195 of the Laws of 1912. From the decree of the chancery court, sustaining a demurrer to his bill of complaint, appellant prosecutes this appeal.

It is contended that the act in question confers upon commissioners appointed by the board of supervisors the power to assess the benefits to all of the land embraced in said drainage district resulting thereto from the construction of the scheme of drainage mapped out by the engineer of the district; that this power is conferred upon the assessor alone, and the legislature cannot substitute others to execute this power of assessment, citing sections 112 and 138 of the Constitution: State v. Tonella, 70 Miss. 701, 14 So. 17, 22 L. R. A. 346; Hawkins v. Mangum, 78 Miss. 97, 28 So. 872.

We do not think that the two cases cited are authority for the contention of appellant. These cases deal with the assessments of real and personal property for general taxation for the support of county and state governments. It has been expressly decided by this court that section 112 of the Constitution, providing "that taxation shall be uniform and equal throughout the state," has no application to local assessments. A very interesting and exhaustive examination of this point may be found in the opinion of this court in Cox v. Wallace, 100 Miss. 525, 56 So. 461, et seq. This question was not of first impression, and the opinion in that case cites the authorities for the ruling there made. It would seem that the learned chief justice, in the case of Cox v. Wallace, supra, put this question beyond dispute or argumentation in this state, and that this court would be relieved of that duty for all time to come.

The county assessor has nothing to do with assessments of benefits for local improvements, unless the legislature should see fit to impose upon him this duty; in this case, his powers would come from the statute, and not from the Constitution.

It is said that the act reviewed authorizes the organization of drainage districts for the private, and not for public, benefit. Nothing could be further from the purposes of the act. A mere reading of the act will disclose that the two main purposes of the organization of the districts are to improve the lands embraced therein for agricultural purposes, and to promote the public health of the inhabitants of that and contiguous territory. While it is true that the financial benefits may be limited to a few landowners, or it may redound to the material interests of many, nevertheless the improvement is for the welfare of the public, and some individuals may derive greater benefits than others. The legislature has decided all these questions, and to the legislature our laws grant this power.

Again it is contended that the act is invalid for the reason that the power is given the commissioners to "take private property without due process." The act provides for notice to all owners of land situated in the proposed district of the time and place for the hearing of all objections, before the formation of the district, and the right of appeal is conferred upon any person aggrieved by the order of the board, unless the...