Reed v. Adams, 41121
| Decision Date | 13 April 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. 41121,41121 |
| Citation | 236 Miss. 333,111 So.2d 222 |
| Parties | R. L. REED, Jr., Mayor of the City of Long Beach, Mississippi, v. F. W. ADAMS et al. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Pete H. Carrubba, Long Beach, Donald O. Simmons, Gulfport, for appellant.
Owen T. Palmer, Jr., Charles R. Galloway, Gulfport, for appellee.
This is a mandamus suit to require the Mayor of the City of Long Beach, Mississippi, to sign a bill of exceptions submitted to him for his signature in pursuant of an appeal from an order of the Board of Mayor and Aldermen of the City of Long Beach adopting a re-zoning ordinance.
The appellees, who are residents, qualified electors, property owners and taxpayers of the City of Long Beach, filed the petition for a writ of mandamus in the Circuit Court of Harrison County against R. L. Reed, Jr., Mayor of the City of Long Beach, appellant herein. The petition for writ of mandamus alleged that on the 24th day of September, 1957, the Board of Mayor and Aldermen of the City of Long Beach, held a meeting at which a hearing was had relating to a proposal to adopt a re-zoning ordinance providing that a certain area in the City of Long Beach, which had theretofore been zoned residential, be re-classified from residential to 'limited commercial.' It was further alleged in the petition that at said hearing the petitioners appeared and produced before the board certain evidence and testimony in opposition to the adoption of the proposed ordinance, and that at the conclusion of the hearing the board adopted the ordinance over the protest and objection of the appellees. The appellees charged in their petition that the ordinance so adopted was unwarranted and unjustified and constituted an illegal and unreasonable finding, adjudication and action on the part of the board. It was further alleged in the petition that the appellees, within the time allowed by law, undertook to perfect an appeal from said order of the board and prepared a bill of exceptions which purported to embody the facts, judgment and decision of the board, and that said bill of exceptions was duly and timely presented to the mayor for his signature, and that he refused to sign the same upon the claimed grounds that in his opinion the bill of exceptions was incorrect in material particulars.
The prayer of the petition was as follows:
A copy of the bill of exceptions presented to the mayor as aforesaid and a copy of the ordinance as adopted as aforesaid were filed as exhibits to the petition.
The appellant answered the petition and denied that the ordinance adopted by the board as aforesaid was unwarranted and unjustified and constituted an illegal and unreasonable finding and adjudication and action on the part of the Board of Mayor and Aldermen. He admitted that the bill of exceptions exhibited to the petition was duly and timely presented to him for his signature, and that he refused to sign the same for the reason that said bill of exceptions was incorrect in several material particulars.
The circuit court heard the case on the petition and exhibits thereto, and the answer of the defendant below. No evidence was introduced before the circuit court on the hearing. In the course of the hearing, one of the counsel for the appellees proposed to the appellant in open court that if he would 'present those things you thought incorrect, we would just incorporate them in an amendment to this.' The record shows no response to this proposal. Following the submission of the matter to the circuit court, the court entered an order finding that the Mayor did not sign the bill of exceptions for the reason that he did not agree that the same constituted a true statement of the facts and matters which took place at the meeting, and finding that under these circumstances the mayor had the right not to sign a bill of exceptions which he considered to be incorrect. The court, however, further found that under the circumstances it was the duty of the mayor to set out by an addition to the bill of exceptions wherein he deemed the same to be incorrect, and then to sign the bill of exceptions as corrected by him. Accordingly, the court granted the writ of mandamus commanding the mayor to sign the bill of exceptions after amending the same to his satisfaction and in accordance with the facts and happenings at the meeting of the Board of Mayor and Aldermen as he understood them to be. From that order of the trial court, this appeal is prosecuted.
The sole question presented on this appeal is whether the mayor was under a duty to point out what, in his opinion, constituted the errors in the bill of exceptions on the presentation of the bill to him, and to sign the same in accordance with the corrections so indicated, or whether or not the Mayor could arbitrarily refuse to sign the bill of exceptions upon the grounds that he considered the same incorrect.
The statute controlling the question here presented is Section 1195 of the Mississippi Code of 1942, which provides in its pertinent parts as follows:
'Any person aggrieved by a judgment or decision of the board of supervisors, or municipal authorities of a city, town, or village, may appeal within ten (10) days from the date of adjournment at which session the board of supervisors or municipal authorities rendered such judgment or decision, and may...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tunica Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors v. HWCC-Tunica, LLC
...out wherein he deems the same to be incorrect, and to note his corrections thereon, and to sign the same as correct. Reed v. Adams , 236 Miss. 333, 111 So.2d 222, 224 (1959). Section 1195 of the Mississippi Code of 1942, now Mississippi Code Section 11–51–75, "made it the mandatory duty of ......
-
Lenoir v. Madison County
...of Madison County, 290 So.2d 629 (Miss.1974), City of Jackson v. Varia, Inc., 241 Miss. 705, 133 So.2d 16 (1961), and Reed v. Adams, 236 Miss. 333, 111 So.2d 222 (1959). Consequently, McIntosh did not overrule Jennings and it does not support Madison County's contention that a bill of excep......
-
Gill v. Woods, 45423
...a true and correct bill of exceptions, and had been agreed to as such by the president of the board.' In the case of Reed v. Adams, 236 Miss. 333, 111 So.2d 222 (1959), this Court pointed out 'The general rule with respect to bills of exceptions when presented to the proper official for sig......
-
Bowling v. Madison County Bd. of Sup'rs
...exists, the aggrieved party is entitled to have the specific defect explained so that a correction may be made. Reed v. Adams, 236 Miss. 333, 341, 111 So.2d 222, 225 (1959). For the mandamus action to provide meaningful relief, the delay past ten days in getting the mandamus ordered should ......