Leflore County v. Big Sand Drainage Dist., Nos. 51805
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi |
| Writing for the Court | LEE; PATTERSON |
| Citation | 383 So.2d 501 |
| Parties | LEFLORE COUNTY, Mississippi v. BIG SAND DRAINAGE DISTRICT. |
| Decision Date | 30 April 1980 |
| Docket Number | 51085,Nos. 51805 |
Page 501
v.
BIG SAND DRAINAGE DISTRICT.
Fraiser, Burgoon, Henson & Abraham, James W. Burgoon, Jr., Greenwood, for appellant.
Kimbrough, Kimbrough & McLean, G. Hite McLean, Greenwood, for appellee.
Before ROBERTSON, P. J., and LEE and BOWLING, JJ.
LEE, Justice, for the Court.
Big Sand Drainage District (Drainage District) filed suit in the County Court of Leflore County against Leflore County, Mississippi seeking the sum of seven thousand five hundred ninety-four dollars twenty-nine cents ($7,594.29) reimbursement for expenses incurred by it in constructing bridges and culverts on two (2) public roads in Leflore County. The County Court sustained a demurrer to the declaration, and, on appeal to the Circuit Court the judgment on the demurrer was reversed. Leflore County declined to plead further, and default judgment was entered in behalf of the Drainage District in the amount sued for. Leflore County appeals here from the judgment entered in the Circuit Court.
The question presented, as raised by the demurrer, is whether or not Leflore County is liable to the Drainage District for reimbursement of the costs of removing and constructing culverts and bridges across two public roads.
Page 502
Mississippi Code Annotated Section 51-29-95 (1972) provides in part:
"The commissioners of the district shall have the right and power to carry the ditches, either main or lateral, across any highway; and the board of supervisors shall construct suitable bridges across such ditches."
Mississippi Code Annotated Section 51-31-95 (1972) contains the following:
"If in the construction of such ditches the same shall cross any public road, it shall be the duty of the drainage commissioners to notify the board of supervisors of such county in which such public road is located, at some regular meeting of said board held prior to a day which is thirty days next before the time fixed in such notice for the time at which the proposed work shall be constructed across said public road, stating in such notice the width and depth of such proposed work. It shall be the duty of the board of supervisors to cause to be removed and constructed, at the expense of the county, all bridges necessary to be removed, or constructed, same to be done at such time as is reasonable, with a view to the convenience of the public and without unreasonable delay to the prosecution of such work.
Contracts may be made by the board of supervisors for such removal and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harrison County v. City of Gulfport, Nos. 89-IA-511
...a county has no right to sue incident to its being, but only as authorized by law. Leflore County v. Big Sand Drainage District, 383 So.2d 501, 502 (Miss.1980); Brabham v. Board of Supervisors of Hinds County, 54 Miss. 363, 364 (1877). But when we turn to our statute books, we find three co......
-
Jackson v. Daley, No. 96-CA-00642-SCT.
...except as authorized by statute. Coplin v. Francis, 631 So.2d 752, 754 (Miss.1994)(citing Leflore County v. Big Sand Drainage Dist., 383 So.2d 501 (Miss.1980)). As stated previously, pre-Pruett common law controls this case and dictates that counties are merely political subdivisions of the......
-
Fairley v. George County, No. 2003-CA-00320-SCT.
...We long have maintained that a county has no liability except as authorized by statute. Leflore County v. Big Sand Drainage District, 383 So.2d 501 (Miss.1980). In Webb v. County of Lincoln, 536 So.2d 1356, 1359 (Miss.1988) and State for the Use and Benefit of Brazeale v. Lewis, 498 So.2d 3......
-
Coplin v. Francis, No. 90-CA-0705
...We long have maintained that a county has no liability except as authorized by statute. Leflore County v. Big Sand Drainage District, 383 So.2d 501 (Miss.1980). In Webb v. County of Lincoln, 536 So.2d 1356, 1359 (Miss.1988) and State for the Use and Benefit of Brazeale v. Lewis, 498 So.2d 3......
-
Harrison County v. City of Gulfport, Nos. 89-IA-511
...a county has no right to sue incident to its being, but only as authorized by law. Leflore County v. Big Sand Drainage District, 383 So.2d 501, 502 (Miss.1980); Brabham v. Board of Supervisors of Hinds County, 54 Miss. 363, 364 (1877). But when we turn to our statute books, we find three co......
-
Jackson v. Daley, No. 96-CA-00642-SCT.
...except as authorized by statute. Coplin v. Francis, 631 So.2d 752, 754 (Miss.1994)(citing Leflore County v. Big Sand Drainage Dist., 383 So.2d 501 (Miss.1980)). As stated previously, pre-Pruett common law controls this case and dictates that counties are merely political subdivisions of the......
-
Fairley v. George County, No. 2003-CA-00320-SCT.
...We long have maintained that a county has no liability except as authorized by statute. Leflore County v. Big Sand Drainage District, 383 So.2d 501 (Miss.1980). In Webb v. County of Lincoln, 536 So.2d 1356, 1359 (Miss.1988) and State for the Use and Benefit of Brazeale v. Lewis, 498 So.2d 3......
-
Coplin v. Francis, No. 90-CA-0705
...We long have maintained that a county has no liability except as authorized by statute. Leflore County v. Big Sand Drainage District, 383 So.2d 501 (Miss.1980). In Webb v. County of Lincoln, 536 So.2d 1356, 1359 (Miss.1988) and State for the Use and Benefit of Brazeale v. Lewis, 498 So.2d 3......