Keeton v. Board of Supervisors of Clarke County

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
Writing for the CourtSTEVENS, J.
Citation117 Miss. 72,77 So. 906
PartiesKEETON v. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CLARKE COUNTY
Decision Date04 March 1918

77 So. 906

117 Miss. 72

KEETON
v.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CLARKE COUNTY

Supreme Court of Mississippi

March 4, 1918


March, 1918

Division B

APPEAL from the chancery of Clarke county, HON. G. C. TANN, Chancellor.

Suit by G. L. Keeton against the board of supervisors of Clarke county. From a decree dismissing the bill, complainant appeals.

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

Affirmed.

S. G. Terral, amicus curiae.

This is a friendly suit testing the validity of the proposed bond issue for the Carmichael consolidated school district. A petition containing a large number of the qualified electors of the proposed district was filed with the county school board asking for the creation of said district and on May 10, 1916, the school board entered an order attempting to create said district. The order of the school board located the school for said district in the southwest quarter of the southwest quarter (SW 1/4 of SW 1/4), of section five (5), township five (5), north, range seventeen (17) east, which is in Lauderdale county and outside of the proposed district. While the petition for the consolidated district recites that a majority of the qualified electors signed the petition, yet the order itself creating or attempting to create the district does not recite that a majority of the qualified electors have petitioned for the creation of said district. Neither does said order recite that the proposed district conforms to law.

Section 4510 of the Code of 1906, creates a school board and section 4512 defines its duties and prescribes how and when they shall be performed. The latter section requires the board to "designate the location of the schoolhouse in each district," "Prior to the first day of August annually." As the proposed school was not located in the proposed district prior to the first day of August, 1916, manifestly the order locating the school is void. It is absolutely essential that the location of the school be designated by the school board prior to the first day of August. Time is of the very essence of the order. In the case of Howie v. Alford, 100 Miss. 485, construing section 4338 of the Code, this court held that where a tax collector failed to file the tax deeds with the chancery clerk on or before April first, that the sale was void, even though the tax collector may not have concluded the tax sales on that date. Likewise, in the case of Stovall v. Connor, 58 Miss. 138, this court held that where the assessment roll was not presented to the board of supervisors on the first Monday of July, that the assessment was void. Several other authorities might be cited for this same position. This court has frequently held that where the tax collector did not sell land for taxes as the time prescribed by law, that the sale was void. I deem it entirely unnecessary to cite authorities in support of this position.

The order attempting to create the district is also void because of the uncertainty of the description. It reads 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, etc., without naming lots of sections. So far as this court may know, the school board may have intended lots instead of sections, and if it did, then the area is less than that prescribed by law, being a board of limited jurisdiction, its records--and not the petition of the qualified electors, must show the jurisdictional facts. 11 Cyc., 398; Hinton v. County, 84 Miss. 536.

In order for the school board to have jurisdiction, it was necessary to have the petition signed by a majority of the qualified electors of the proposed district asking for the creation of said district in accordance with section 4530 as amended by the Acts of 1914, page 262. The order of the school board does not judicially find that a majority of the qualified electors of said district petitioned for the consolidation of said district. Counsel for appellee will contend that it is not necessary to have the petition signed by a majority of the qualified electors to create a consolidated district, yet it is necessary to have such a petition in order to create a separate school district without the petition of the qualified electors for that purpose would be to say that the school board has the authority to do of its own initiative a greater thing than it would have to do any component part of that thing. In other words, while it could not create a separate school district without the petition of the qualified electors for that purpose, yet it could combine or consolidate two or more separate school districts into one district without any petition whatever and even against the wishes of the qualified electors of the separate school district. Such a contention is absurd on its face. There is essentially no difference between a separate and consolidated school district and as the people are taxed in each instance to maintain a school, the legislature evidently intended that the taxpayers through the qualified electors should have a right to say whether either a separate or a consolidated school district should be created.

It was not competent to show by parol evidence where the school board intended to locate the school. The records of the school board import absolute verity and must be tried by themselves. McCord v. Shaw, 27 So. 602; Ferguson v. Brown, 75 Miss. 214, especially page 224.

The attempted amendment of the school board records did not take place until after August 1, 1916, and not until more than one month after the filing of the bill in this case. Certainly the creation or attempted creation of the consolidated district is a judicial act and as such cannot be rescinded after the board adjourns. Yalabusha v. Carbry, 3 S. & M. 529; Keenan v. Harkin, 82 Miss. 709; American & English Ency. Law (2 Ed.), page 1008.

I respectfully submit that no consolidated school district has been created by the county school board and that therefore the court erred in dissolving the injunction.

Heidelberg & Johnston, for appellant.

A brief in this cause has already been filed by S. H. Terral, amicus curiae, and we desire to adopt his brief as ours and insist that the case should be reversed for the reasons therein stated.

The reasons assigned in said case for reversal of the case are twofold: 1. That the schoolhouse was located by the school board on a tract of land not embraced in the consolidated school district but in Lauderdale county; 2. That there was not a majority petition presented to the county board asking for a consolidation of the different schools which were after the consolidation to constitute the Carmichael consolidated school district.

The reasons assigned in Mr. Terral's brief and the authorities therein cited fully cover these two assignments of errors and we...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 practice notes
  • National Surety Co. v. Board of Supr's Holmes County, 20678
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • October 27, 1919
    ...v. Board of Supervisors, 114 Miss. 446; Rodger v. Board of Supervisors, 114 Miss. 326; Keelon v. Board of Supervisors, [120 Miss. 721] 117 Miss. 72. (4) Board of Supervisors v. King, 115 Miss. 521; Powell v. Board of Supervisors, 65 So. 499; Board of Supervisors v. Helton, 29 So. 820; Board......
  • Amite County School Board v. Reese, 25603
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • May 10, 1926
    ...must be formed by a description of the territory. North Carrollton v. Town of Carrollton, 113 Miss. 1; Keeton v. Board of Supervisors, 117 Miss. 72; King et al. v. Board of Supervisors, 133 Miss. 494, 97 So. 811. In like manner it has been held that a road district must be [143 Miss. 884] p......
  • Board of Sup'rs of forrest County v. Clark, 29933
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • April 11, 1932
    ...the spending of the money derived therefrom is another and different matter altogether. Keaton v. Board of Supervisors of Clarke County, 77 So. 906. The phrase "furnishing the same with all necessary school supplies" is surplusage. Board of Supervisors of De Soto County v. Dean, 82 So. 257;......
  • Hughes v. Ball, 25463
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • January 18, 1926
    ...objected to the introduction of this order. We say it was competent. 11 Cyc., page 764; Keeton v. Board of Supervisors, Clarke County, 117 Miss. 72. In our opinion, this suit by appellant and complainant below was brought in the lower court and urged here on purely technical questions. Whil......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 cases
  • National Surety Co. v. Board of Supr's Holmes County, 20678
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • October 27, 1919
    ...v. Board of Supervisors, 114 Miss. 446; Rodger v. Board of Supervisors, 114 Miss. 326; Keelon v. Board of Supervisors, [120 Miss. 721] 117 Miss. 72. (4) Board of Supervisors v. King, 115 Miss. 521; Powell v. Board of Supervisors, 65 So. 499; Board of Supervisors v. Helton, 29 So. 820; Board......
  • Amite County School Board v. Reese, 25603
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • May 10, 1926
    ...must be formed by a description of the territory. North Carrollton v. Town of Carrollton, 113 Miss. 1; Keeton v. Board of Supervisors, 117 Miss. 72; King et al. v. Board of Supervisors, 133 Miss. 494, 97 So. 811. In like manner it has been held that a road district must be [143 Miss. 884] p......
  • Board of Sup'rs of forrest County v. Clark, 29933
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • April 11, 1932
    ...the spending of the money derived therefrom is another and different matter altogether. Keaton v. Board of Supervisors of Clarke County, 77 So. 906. The phrase "furnishing the same with all necessary school supplies" is surplusage. Board of Supervisors of De Soto County v. Dean, 82 So. 257;......
  • Hughes v. Ball, 25463
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • January 18, 1926
    ...objected to the introduction of this order. We say it was competent. 11 Cyc., page 764; Keeton v. Board of Supervisors, Clarke County, 117 Miss. 72. In our opinion, this suit by appellant and complainant below was brought in the lower court and urged here on purely technical questions. Whil......
  • 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