Rotenberry v. Board of Sup'rs of Yalobusha County

• Decision Date: 20 January 1890
• Citation: 67 Miss. 470,7 So. 211
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: J. J. ROTENBERRY v. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF YALOBUSHA COUNTY ET AL

7 So. 211

67 Miss. 470

J. J. ROTENBERRY v. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF YALOBUSHA COUNTY ET AL

Supreme Court of Mississippi

January 20, 1890

FROM the chancery court of the first district of Yalobusha county HON. J. G. HALL, Chancellor.

The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion.

Decree affirmed and cause remanded.

W. S Chapman, for appellant,

Filed a written argument, without citation of authorities, discussing at length the evidence, to prove that the building of a new court-house was entirely unnecessary, and that the lot at present owned by the county was altogether suitable as a site for a new court-house if one should be built; that the statutory power of the board of supervisors to purchase a site does not exist where the county already owns a suitable site. As the wisdom of the action of the board of supervisors in purchasing a new site is immaterial in the opinion of the court, the argument in reference to this is not given.

R. H Golladay, for appellees.

The jurisdiction in the matter of providing court-houses and sites therefor, is confided to the board of supervisors exclusively. Code 1880, §§ 2144, 2148, 2149.

Equity will not interfere with the honest, though erroneous judgment and discretion of the board in this respect. 2 High on Inj., §§ 1240, 1274, 1311; 32 Barb. 118.

It would not do so even in cases of private trust and confidence. The power of the board to purchase a new site is not affected by the fact that the county already owns one lot. Odeneal v. Barry, 24 Miss. 21.

Even if the board had not the power or exceeded its power, prohibition would lie and afford an adequate remedy. Crisler v. Morrison, 57 Miss. 802; Planters' Ins. Co. v. Cramer, 47 Ib. 200. Unless the remedies to revise the action of the board are adequate. 57 Miss. 802.

But if the revisory remedies are adequate, an injunction does not lie. 1 High on Inj., 173.

An ample remedy is given the tax-payer by § 2177 of the code. See Paxton v. Arthur, 60 Miss. 832. This being true, injunction will not lie. 1 High on Inj., § 29.

OPINION

WOODS, C. J.

The appellant filed his original bill in first district of Yalobusha county to enjoin the board of supervisors from making any contract for the building of a new court-house and to have declared void the various orders of the board of supervisors, made and entered on their minutes in the year 1889, condemning the old court-house, purchasing a new site for a new court building, and taking steps looking to the erection of it, and for the cancellation of the contract of purchase and sale made between said board of supervisors and George Boswell, for the site selected by the board for the erection thereon of a new court-house. The allegations of the bill were fully met in the answers made by Boswell and the president and three members of the board. Much testimony was taken, and the matter was at length submitted to the chancellor, on a motion of defendants to dissolve the injunction which had been granted complainant on his bill. The chancellor dissolved the injunction and granted an appeal to this court, in order to settle the principles of the cause.

Looking at the entire case, we see nothing but the question of the jurisdiction of a court of chancery over the lawful exercise of the powers belonging, under our constitution and laws, to the boards of supervisors exclusively. The power of the board of supervisors over court-houses, and sites for court-houses, is complete and exclusive in this state,...