Northern Drainage Dist. v. Bolivar County

• Decision Date: 17 April 1916
• Docket Number: 17589
• Citation: 111 Miss. 250,71 So. 380
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: NORTHERN DRAINAGE DISTRICT v. BOLIVAR COUNTY

71 So. 380

111 Miss. 250

NORTHERN DRAINAGE DISTRICT v. BOLIVAR COUNTY

No. 17589

Supreme Court of Mississippi

April 17, 1916

APPEAL from the circuit court of Bolivar county, HON. W. D. CUTRER Special Judge.

Suit by Bolivar County against the Northern Drainage District. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.

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

Affirmed.

Thomas S. Owen, for appellant.

Green &amp Green and Fontaine Jones, for appellee.

OPINION

COOK, P. J.

This action was instituted by board of supervisors of Bolivar county against the appellant drainage district for the purpose of recovering the amount expended by the board of supervisors for removing and replacing public bridges which crossed the drainage canals and ditches of the drainage district.

The defendant pleaded the general issue and two special pleas. The first special plea averred that the board of supervisors agreed with the drainage commissioners that, if they would not assess the public roads of the county, the board of supervisors would remove and replace all bridges on the public roads where the canals crossed the roads. The second special plea averred that the bridges mentioned in the declaration were built across natural water courses; and that defendant was not liable for the costs of replacing the same. Demurrers were filed to the two special pleas, and were sustained by the court.

At the trial it was agreed in an agreed statement of facts that the bridges were built at the expense of the board of supervisors; that they were built prior to January 1, 1912; that all of the bridges were built on public roads and across natural water courses, that is, where the public roads cross natural water courses which were being dredged by the drainage commissioners for the two drainage districts; that all of the bridges were on public roads of the county.

Appellant insists that the court erred in sustaining the demurrer to the second plea. This contention is based upon the fact that prior to January, 1912, the drainage commissioners organized under chapter 39, Code 1912, had no authority to do any work on natural water courses, citing Ex parte Drainage Commissioners of Leflore County, 100 Miss. 821, 57 So. 223.

We think section 13, ch. 196, Laws 1912, validated the work theretofore done on natural water courses, and the expenditures made in furtherance of such work. But it is said that the same law that validated work on water courses also imposed upon the counties the duty to replace bridges at the expense of the county. We believe that the validation of the work was retrospective, while the requirement that counties should replace bridges at their own expense is prospective. Undoubtedly the obligation to pay for replacing bridges had been incurred, and in contemplation of the statute this was...