Spears v. City of Oxford

• Decision Date: 23 April 1956
• Docket Number: No. 40116,40116
• Citation: 227 Miss. 801,87 So.2d 61
• Parties: S. E. SPEARS v. CITY OF OXFORD.
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court

Page 61

87 So.2d 61

227 Miss. 801

S. E. SPEARS v. CITY OF OXFORD.

No. 40116.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

April 23, 1956.

Fant & Bush, Holly Springs, for appellant.

J. W. Price, Oxford, for appellee.

HALL, Justice.

This is an appeal from a decree of the Chancery Court of Lafayette County approving an ordinance extending the corporate limits of the City of Oxford so as to include therein, among other territory, approximately 100 acres of land belonging to appellant, who was the only objector at the hearing in the Chancery Court.

Numerous errors are assigned by the appellant, many of which are well taken, but we consider it necessary to discuss only two of them. At the beginning of and throughout the trial the appellant contended that the burden of proof was upon the City to show that the proposed enlargement of the city limits is reasonable. The chancellor ruled otherwise and we think that in this he was clearly in error. This proceeding was under Chapter 491 of the Laws of 1950, and the last sentence of Section 13 thereof, which appears as Section 3374-13, Code of 1942, specifically provides 'In any proceeding under this section the burden shall be upon the municipal authorities to show that the proposed enlargement or contraction is reasonable.' In the recent case of In re Extension of the Boundaries of the City of Indianola, Miss., 85 So.2d 212, 214, not yet reported in the State Reports, we specifically said that under the provisions of the aforesaid chapter 'when a proceeding for the enlargement or contraction of the corporate limits of a municipality is initiated by the city authorities the burden of proof is upon them to establish that the proposal is reasonable and that the public convenience and necessity requires that the proposal be approved.' In that case we further pointed out the error in the case of White v. Town of Drew, 214 Miss. 147, 58 So.2d 372, which had placed the burden of proof upon the objections.

We think that the error of the chancellor as to the burden of proof also led him into error in his findings and in the conclusions in his final decree to the effect that the proposed extension is reasonable. Bearing in mind the rule as to burden of proof, we are of the opinion that the decree is contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence. Appellant's land which the decree takes into the corporate limits consists of about 100 acres. He did not object to the City taking into the corporate limits approximately 6 acres in the northwest corner, which will be hereinafter described, but he did object to including within the city the remainder of his land amounting to approximately 94 acres. According to the proof there is one house on the 94 acre tract, which is occupied by appellant's daughter. On the 6 acre tract there are situated six houses, one being appellant's home and the others being 5 Negro tenant houses, one of which is vacant, and the whole place is populated by 7 white people and 7 colored people. There is no public road on the property. A branch runs from one end to the other of it and this branch is low and swampy and is not drained. Only about 25 acres of the land is susceptible of cultivation. The 94 acre tract is badly eroded and consists of hills and hollows, which is not susceptible of being converted into any residential area or other municipal purpose except at a prohibitive cost. None of it is suitable for opening a subdivision. There are some...