Sharp v. Smith
| Decision Date | 07 February 1938 |
| Docket Number | 33018 |
| Citation | 178 So. 595,180 Miss. 887 |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Parties | SHARP v. SMITH et al |
1 TAXATION.
Where board of supervisors of county having two judicial districts made order in 1925 providing for equalization meeting in second district on first Monday of August of that year, and a "continued meeting" in first district beginning the 7th, action of board in approving assessment rolls of first district at the adjourned meeting was void, since there was no authority for such a meeting (Laws 1920, chapter 323 sections 5, 6; Code 1930, section 3162).
2 TAXATION.
Even if proper order was made and proper notice given for special meeting of county board of supervisors for hearing of objections to assessment rolls, meeting was void and order rendered at such meeting approving rolls was invalid, where notice was not copied in and made part of order approving rolls as required by statute (Laws 1920, chapter 323 sections 5, 6; Code 1906, sections 298; Code 1930, section 3162).
3. TAXATION.
Under statute providing that notice of special meeting of county board of supervisors for equalization of taxes shall be entered in full on minutes of meeting, the notice is in the nature of process to be served on public and the exclusive evidence of its service is its entry in full in the approval order of the board. (Laws 1920, chapter 323, sections 5, 6; Code 1906, section 298; Code 1930, section 3162).
HON. V. J. STRICKER, Chancellor.
APPEAL from the chancery court of Hinds county HON. V. J. STRICKER, Chancellor.
Suit by Edna Smith and others against M. W. Sharp to cancel a tax title as cloud on their title. From an adverse decree, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Affirmed.
W. M. Denny, of Jackson, for appellant.
The case of the appellant herein must succeed or fail by the determination of this court as to the validity of the 1925-1926 assessment of realty in the district and county. The appellant presents unto this court the theories as to the meeting of Hinds County Board of Supervisors at Jackson on August 7, 1925, as follows: That said meeting was a valid meeting of said board and a part of its July, 1925, meeting, under and by virtue of the provisions of sections 3668 and 3669 of 1917 Hemingway Code; or, if mistaken as to thai, the meeting at Jackson on August 7, 1925, was held pursuant to an order of said board entered upon its July, 1925, minutes, advertisement of notice of which was had, as shown by minutes of said board, Book 20, page 561, and the holding thereof was in strict compliance with the law providing for special meetings of said board.
Hinds County was created into two judicial districts by the act of November 1858, at page 54, and the same is silent as to meetings of said board in the two districts and thereby Hinds County fits squarely under the provisions of said section 3669 of 1917 Hemingway Code.
The said section 3669 specifically provides that the revenue meeting of the board in counties having two districts may be continued by said board to such time as in its judgment may be proper, the law itself placing no restriction upon the exercise of discretion by the board of supervisors undertaking to act under the authority thereof, and surely, under such law and circumstances, the board of supervisors of Hinds County, at its July and August, 1925, meetings, were not guilty of such abuse of discretion as to render their acts void.
Robertson v. First National Bank of Greenville, 115 Miss. 840, 76 So. 689; Davis v. Grice, 106 So. 631, 141 Miss. 412.
The meeting for August 7, 1925, at Jackson, was ordered by the board at its July, 1925, meeting at Jackson, and the order therefor appears upon the July, 1925, minutes of said board at pages 561-562 of Book 20 thereof, and the minutes for August 7, 1925 meeting of said board at Jackson shows that ample publication of the notice of said meeting was had and therefore said meeting was valid as a special meeting of said board.
Davis v. Grice, 141 Miss. 412, 106 So. 631; Section 6939, 1917 Hemingway's Code.
This record demonstrates, beyond all question, that the 1925-1926 assessment of realty in the First District of Hinds County, Mississippi, was made according to law in each and every particular, and it follows that the fee simple title to the land involved in this cause passed lo the state by said tax sale thereof and is now vested in the appellant in this cause, and therefore the decree complained of in this cause should be reversed and the appellant declared the owner of said land.
L. F. Easterling, of Jackson, for appellees.
The assessment roll under which the sale was made is null and void.
The minutes of the Board of Supervisors, as shown by the evidence, show clearly and conclusively that the board under the Act of 1876 alternated, meeting first at Jackson, in January, and then at Raymond in February and so on, anti that the regular meeting of the board in the Second District of Hinds County was at Raymond on the first Monday of August. The board, therefore had no authority under the law to adjourn from Raymond to Jackson.
Sections 5 and 6, Chapter 323, Laws of 1920; Smith v. Nelson, 57 Miss. 138; Fanning v. Funchess, 60 Miss. 541; Turney v. Brown, 67 Miss. 109, 6 So. 737; Brown v. Roe, 62 Miss. 513; Investment Co. v. Suddoth, 70 Miss. 416, 12 So. 246; Johnson v. Futch, 57 Miss. 73; Hunter v. Bennett, 149 Miss. 368, 115 So. 204.
Section 5, Chapter 323, Laws of 1930, provides that the board shall immediately at the July meeting proceed to equalize such rolls and shall complete the equalization at least ten days before the August meeting, and shall immediately by newspaper publication notify the public that such rolls so equalized are ready and open for inspection and examination.
Section 6 reads in part as follows: "The Board of Supervisors of each county shall hold a meeting at the court house, or at the Chancery Clerk's office in counties where the Chancery Clerk's office is in a building separate from the court house on the first Monday of August to hear objections to the assessment and to examine the same." This was the law in force at the time the attempted assessment was made, and, therefore, is the law by which the tax sale must be tested.
The Board had no authority to meet in Jackson on August 7, 1925, under the law as written, If it became necessary for the transaction of business to meet in August, 1925, at Jackson, the Board had the authority and was vested with the power under section 298 of 1906 (Sec. 3671, Hemingway's Code of 1917) to call a special meeting. In other words, the Board could have called a special meeting at any time in August to be held in Jackson, first district, for the purpose of hearing objections to the land roll, but in order to have called and held a legal special meeting of the board for that purpose, it was necessary under said section that the notice prescribed therein should be given.
Section 3162, Code of 1930, Chapter 323, Laws of 1920.
It appears from the inspection of the minutes that the board had no fixed and established time of holding meetings, either at Raymond or Jackson, except the regular term, as fixed by law, meeting first in the First District in Jackson and next in the Second District at Raymond, and alternating thereafter.
We submit that a board of supervisors has no more authority under the law to adjourn from the ...
To continue reading
Request your trial