Lee v. Hancock County

• Decision Date: 14 February 1938
• Docket Number: 33035
• Citation: 178 So. 790,181 Miss. 847
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: LEE et al. v. HANCOCK COUNTY

178 So. 790

181 Miss. 847

LEE et al. v. HANCOCK COUNTY

No. 33035

Supreme Court of Mississippi

February 14, 1938

Division A

APPEAL from the chancery court of Hancock county HON. D. M. RUSSELL Chancellor.

Proceeding by the County of Hancock to validate a proposed issue of bonds of the county, wherein Ben F. Lee and others filed objections. From a decree validating the bonds and striking out the objections, the objectors appeal. Reversed and rendered.

On suggestion of error, suggestion of error overruled, March 14 1938 (179 So. 559).

Reversed and decree here. Suggestion of error overruled.

Edward I. Jones, of Bay St. Louis, for appellants.

The transcript of the proceedings of the board of supervisors in the case at bar does not show a full compliance with the law governing the issuance of bonds and the existence of jurisdictional facts necessary to be shown in its proceedings.

The board of supervisors of Hancock County is a court of special and limited jurisdiction when proceeding to borrow money and issue bonds, pledging the full faith and credit of the county, and the record of the proceedings of a court of special and limited jurisdiction must affirmatively show the existence of every jurisdictional fact necessary to authorize it to act; otherwise its proceedings and judgment are void.

Gordon v. Smith, 122 So. 762; City of Pascagoula v. Krebs, 118 So. 286; Henderson Molpus Co. v. Gammill, 115 So. 716; Bd. of Suprs. v. Ottley, 146 Miss. 118, 112 So. 466; Aden v. Bd. of Suprs., 142 Miss. 696, 107 So. 753; Smythe v. Whitehead, 133 Miss. 184, 97 So 529; Monroe County v. Minga, 127 Miss. 702, 90 So. 443; Robertson v. Bank, 115 Miss. 840, 76 So. 689; Henry v. Board of Supervisors, 111 Miss. 434, 71 So. 742; Robb v. Tel. Co., 104 Miss. 165, 61 So. 170, 977; Adams v. Bank, 103 Miss. 744, 60 So. 770; Hinton v. Perry County, 84 Miss. 536, 36 So. 565; Bolivar County v. Coleman, 71 Miss. 836, 15 So. 107; Marks v. McElroy, 67 Miss. 545, 7 So. 408.

The legislature in the year 1932 by enacting House Bill No. 218, which is now known as Chapter 104 of the Laws of 1932 of the State of Mississippi, provides for the limitation upon the levies of ad valorem taxes after the expiration of the fiscal year ending September 30, 1932, and under said law the county of Hancock was limited to a levy of eight mills for revenue to be used for all general county purposes and to a levy not to exceed seven mills for the maintenance and construction of roads and bridges in said county.

The Board of Supervisors of Hancock County made levies for the general fund and for the road and bridge fund of Hancock County to the maximum levy allowed by said act for these particular funds and all the money collected by the imposition of these levies was expended and in addition the board of supervisors expended a large amount, allowances for which were made by the board of supervisors and the proceeding herein is an attempt to issue bonds to pay the deficit and would in effect circumvent the limitations fixed by said Chapter 104 of the Laws of 1932.

The objections do not complain against the allowance of any specific claim or against the allowance or payment of the combined total of all of the claims, but do strenuously object to the floatation of a bond issue, with which to raise the money to pay them, especially in view of the fact that the county at the present time has an outstanding bonded indebtedness of over 25 per cent of the last completed assessment, and Chapter 235 of the Laws of 1932 specifically limits counties to issue bonds not to exceed more than 10 per cent of the last completed assessment of said county, and surely there is no merit to the contention that the objections herein set out are collateral attacks upon the judicial acts of the board of supervisors when the claims or allowances are not contested nor the payment thereof, but these are invited objections filed at the hearing wherein the taxpayers were notified to file objections, and the objections filed herein are direct attacks.

J. F. Galloway, of Gulfport, amicus curiae.

Proponents of the bond issue, it seems, have filed no answer to the objections by taxpayers, but have rested their cause upon the proposition that under the provisions of Section 5977 of the Code of 1930, where the board has adjudicated the fact that there were "outstanding, undisputed, valid and legal obligations of the county" that the board of supervisors, if there was no money in the county treasury with which to pay the said claims lawfully, to issue bonds in a sufficient amount to pay the same, without any notice to the taxpayers, or giving the taxpayers a chance to express themselves at an election to be held therefor.

If that position be true, then the board of supervisors may disregard the budget laws, Chapter 91 of the Code of 1930; disregard the provisions of Chapter 232 of the Acts of 1932; disregard the provisions of Chapter 235 of the Acts of 1932; Chapter 197 of the Acts of 1932; Chapter 198 of the Acts of 1932 and Chapter 204 of the Acts of 1932; as well as all of the other code provisions appearing in the Code of 1930 governing and restricting the issuance of bonds by board of supervisors, and other public authorities having jurisdiction over such matters, which so clearly announce the intention, purpose and fixed policy of the legislature, for the protection of the taxpayers, to require such authorities to conduct their fiscal affairs on a cash basis as is so fully and clearly stated in Chapter 235 of the Acts of 1932.

It is believed that the proponents of the bond issue have overlooked the fact that Chapter 235 has modified, limited, and rendered invalid, the provisions of Section 5977, which for a brief period of time, appeared to give to the public authorities, the power now here contended for.

The obligations sought to be paid are alleged in the order to be valid legal obligations of the county, but so far as the record shows there is no way the taxpayers or anyone else can know whether this be true or not. No notice was given to the taxpayers giving them an opportunity to appear and contest the alleged obligation, or to show cause why so large an amount of bonds should be issued.

The board in effect has announced to the taxpayers of Hancock County that it is none of their business except to shell out the cash after the bonds are sold.

It is submitted that even under the provisions of Section 5977 of the Code of 1930, the public authorities were required to serve notice by publication, at least upon the taxpayers, that they had incurred legal obligations, beyond their budgets, beyond the legal limits of bond issues, and contrary to the provisions of the budget laws, all mandatory in their requirements, that no such condition should exist.

This court also has recognized the wisdom of giving the taxpayers some say in the matter of bond issues.

Madison County v. Howard, 80 So. 524, 119 Miss. 133.

It is submitted that if the public boards have the authority to issue bonds to pay for claims incurred beyond the revenues of the several years, and where it is not shown that an emergency has existed, that acts of Providence have intervened, or that the taxpayers were not notified of the, purpose to issue said bonds, pay such claims, and an opportunity given at a day certain to be heard in opposition to said claim, testing their validity and legality, and also the issuance of such bonds, then the budget laws of the state may as well never have been enacted, and Chapters 232 and 235 of the Acts of 1932 are mere waste of printers ink upon our law books.

Gex & Gex and E. J. Gex, all of Bay St. Louis, for appellee.

The minutes stated that there were existing, outstanding, undisputed, valid and legal indebtednesses and obligations of the county amounting to $ 65,000, with insufficient funds with which to pay same, and that pursuant to the requirements of Section 5977 of the Code of 1930, and the mandatory requirements thereof, the bonds would be issued. This is all that is required, under the provisions of Section 5977.

But counsel for appellants contends that that section has no application, because it has been repealed by Chapter 235 of the Laws of 1932, which in section 3 thereof limits the amount of bonds which a county may issue to 10% of the assessed value of the county. If he were right in stating that Chapter 235 repealed Section 5977, we would concede that the minutes of the board would have to reflect the facts which he claims were requirements before the issue of bonds could be made; however, Chapter 235 of the Laws of 1932 was never intended to affect Section 5977 of the Code of 1930. In fact, the Code of 1930, Section 5986, provides that no county shall issue bonds in excess of 15% of the assessed valuation of the county, "except to pay outstanding obligations as herein provided." This section as well as Section 5977 are included in Chapter 152 of the Code of 1930, which also includes Section 5979.

Choctaw County v. Tennison, 134 So. 900.

Each of the statutes must be read in conjunction with the others, and where possible to do so, all the various sections of the code must be harmonized.

Harvey v. Covington County, 138 So. 403; Green v. Hutson, 139 Miss. 471; Borroum v. Purdy Road Dist., 131 Miss. 778; Johnson v. Yazoo County, 113 Miss. 435.

No attempt at any time was made by the objectors to question the validity or legality of the claims sought to be paid by the bond issue in question, nor the facts adjudicated by the board as appear from the minutes, which were that there were $ 65,000 of outstanding, legal and valid claims with insufficient funds from which to pay same, and that therefore by virtue of Section 5977 of 1930 Code a bond issue was required...