State Tax Commission v. Clinton, 46753
| Decision Date | 02 October 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 46753,46753 |
| Citation | 267 So.2d 312 |
| Parties | STATE TAX COMMISSION v. Deway Richard CLINTON et al. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
James E. Williams, Jackson, for appellant.
Laurel G. Weir, Philadelphia, for appellees.
The State Tax Commission appealed from an order of the Circuit Court of Neshoba County, Mississippi overruling its motion to quash process. Appellees, Dewey Richard Clinton and Devon Howell, filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the appeal was from an interlocutory order.
Appellees, Clinton and Howell, were arrested by agents of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Division of the State Tax Commission for possessing and transporting intoxicating liquor in Neshoba County, a dry county. The vehicles of appellees, Clinton and Howell, were seized and carried to Hinds County for storage pending sale by appellant under Section 10265-07 Mississippi Code 1942 Annotated (Supp.1966).
The County Attorney of Neshoba County, Mississippi filed separate petitions to condemn the two vehicles for sale by Neshoba County under Section 2618 Mississippi Code 1942 Annotated (1956), and pursuant to a writ of seizure the vehicles were returned to Neshoba County. Under the provisions of Section 2619 Mississippi Code 1942 Annotated (1956) appellees Clinton and Howell, interposed claim to the vehicles as owners and obtained possession of the vehicles after filing bond as provided by law.
Appellant made an oral motion to quash process on the ground that the vehicles were in its possession under lawful authority and that they were not subject to reseizure by the Sheriff of Neshoba County. The court reserved ruling on the motion and requested briefs from all interested parties. By orders in both cases, the court, on motion of appellant, reopened the hearing on the motion to quash for the purpose of permitting appellant to introduce evidence pertaining to the seizure of the two vehicles.
Following the evidentiary hearing, the court, by interlocutory order dated April 28, 1971, held that the seizure of the vehicles in October, 1970 was unlawful and that Section 10265-07 Mississippi Code 1942 Annotated (Supp.1966) was unconstitutional.
An appeal may be taken to the Supreme Court from any final judgment of the circuit court in a civil case, but there is no interlocutory appeal from a judgment of the circuit court, except from an order for a new trial based on the excessiveness or inadequacy of damages. A judgment of the circuit court is not final which does not settle the cause as to all of the parties, or when it does not finally dispose of all the issues presented. See Sections 1147 and 1536...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Mound Bayou v. Johnson
... ... III (Section 1983 claim) with prejudice, remands Counts I and II (state law claims) to Circuit Court of Bolivar County ... July 7, 1988 Circuit ... See Parker v. Mississippi Game and Fish Commission, 555 So.2d 725, 728 (Miss.1989); Pugh v. Easterling, 367 So.2d 935, 937 ... Burrill, 312 So.2d 1 (Miss.1975); State Tax Commission v. Clinton, 267 So.2d 312 (Miss.1972); Coats v. Coats, 227 Miss. 264, 86 So.2d 4 ... ...
-
Holladay v. Roberts
...was dismissed as untimely without consideration by the supreme court of the constitutionality of the statute, State Tax Commission v. Clinton, 267 So.2d 312 (Miss. 1972). ...
-
Southern Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co. v. Holland, 54413
...Southern Saw & Mower Distributors, Inc. v. Dolman North American Corporation, 317 So.2d 400 (Miss.1975); and State Tax Commission v. Clinton, 267 So.2d 312 (Miss.1972). All of this would have been obvious to a majority not so indefatigably intent upon benefitting this State with their This ......
-
State for Use and Benefit of Moak v. Moore, No. 51526
...other litigant, and defeat such other litigant's right to appeal a final determination as to all other parties. State Tax Commission v. Clinton, 267 So.2d 312 (Miss.1972) is not controlling here because in that case the attempted appeal was obviously from an interlocutory order. Robbins, et......