Williams v. Stevens, 51684

• Decision Date: 10 December 1980
• Docket Number: No. 51684,51684
• Citation: Williams v. Stevens, 390 So.2d 1012 (Miss. 1980)
• Parties: Peyton W. WILLIAMS, Jr., et al., v. Boswell STEVENS et al.
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court

Page 1012

390 So.2d 1012

Peyton W. WILLIAMS, Jr., et al., v.Boswell STEVENS et al.

No. 51684.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Dec. 10, 1980.

John E. Hughes, III, Wells, Wells, Marble & Hurst, Jackson, for appellant.

M. M. Roberts, Hattiesburg, A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen. by Ed Davis Noble, Jr., Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.

En banc.

BROOM, Justice, for the Court:

La Bauve Trustee voting rights relative to membership on the Board of Trustees(the Board) of State Institutions of Higher Learning under Section 213-A of the Mississippi Constitution of 1890 highlight this case.Complainants(appellants) are: Peyton Williams, Jr. and Jane Koelz, faculty and staff employees of Mississippi State University, and Katherine J. Mosley, a staff employee of Jackson State University.Named as defendants were Boswell Stevens, Dr. Verner S. Holmes, Dr. R. C. Cook, William M. Shoemaker, Sr., Travis E. Parker, Bobby L. Chain, Mrs. Miriam Q. Simmons, Dr. Robert Walker Harrison, Charles C. Jacobs, Jr., Dr. John R. Lovelace, Mrs. Betty A. Williams, Neal Denton Rogers and Robert L. Shemwell, Jr., the membership of the Board of Trustees of State Institutions of Higher Learning when suit was commenced, and Dr. E. E. Thrash, Executive Secretary of the Board.¹Originally filed in the Chancery Court of Noxubee County, suit was transferred to the Chancery Court of the First Judicial District of Hinds County.The lower court sustained appellees' (defendants) general demurrer and the complainants appeal here.

The controversy resulting in the litigation before us arose from action taken April 28, 1977, when the Board considered a motion

(T)o allocate $100,000.00 to Delta State University and $300,000.00 to the University of Mississippi before allocating according to the formula the remaining increase for on-campus general support for 1977-78.

By a 7 to 6 vote, the La Bauve Trustee voting affirmatively, this motion was approved by the Board.The appellants correctly point out that except for the La Bauve Trustee vote, the motion would have failed on a tie vote.Argument of the appellants is that the La Bauve Trustee was not entitled to vote on the motion because it did not exclusively pertain to the University of Mississippi.Appellants(complainants) aver in their bill that they"individually have been damaged monetarily and in their inability to fulfill the terms and conditions of their contract."Their action sought a permanent injunction precluding

... the "Trustee for the La Bauve Fund", and his successors in office, if any, to participate in any business of the Board whatsoever, unless said business of the Board pertains exclusively and uniquely to the University of Mississippi, and does not affect in any manner any other institution of higher learning.

In making his ruling, the chancellor stated:

This court cannot do that which is requested by the complainants.Since the provisions of the section of the Constitution in question provide that the La Bauve Trustee shall be a trustee in addition to the other trustees, he is in fact a member of the Board of Trustees of Institutions of Higher Learning.The section restricts him to voting "only in matters pertaining to the University."The context of the word university indicates clearly that this does mean the University of Mississippi, and no question is raised about that part.But the limitation placed on the La Bauve Trustee to voting only in matters pertaining to the University of Mississippi is clear and unambiguous.In effect, when any matter is put to a vote before the Board, the question must be first answered, "Does the matter before the Board for a vote pertain to the University of Mississippi?"If it pertains to the University of Mississippi, then the La Bauve Trustee has the right to vote.If it does not pertain to the University of Mississippi, the La Bauve Trustee does not have a right to vote.

Along with their answer and demurrerthe appellees filed as separate defenses: (1) a plea contending that the appellants lacked "standing to bring this suit;" and (2) a plea in bar contending that no appeal had been taken "from the action of said Board" in the proper manner.Along with and as a part of their pleas was their request that the pleas "be heard prior to a hearing on the merits...."Nevertheless, without addressing or ruling on the separate defenses, the chancellor sustained the demurrer and stated:

The demurrer raised questions of jurisdiction and standing to sue, but the main thrust of the matter has to do with the interpretations of the words used in Section 213-A of the Mississippi Constitution.* * *

Left unresolved were the issues of the complainants' "standing" and the "plea in bar."Both these issues should be decided at an evidentiary hearing before reaching other issues.

True it is that the parties proceeded to trial on demurrer without pressing for a resolution of the "standing" issue.However, our view is that the issue of "standing" is a jurisdictional question which can and should be raised by us on our own motion-this is especially true where, as here, a constitutional interpretation is sought.To conclude otherwise would permit the "standing" issue to be resolved with the accompanying possibility that it might be determined adversely to the...