City of Holly Springs v. Marshall County

61 So. 703, 104 Miss. 752
CourtMississippi Supreme Court
DecidedMarch 15, 1913
StatusPublished
Cited by19 cases

This text of 61 So. 703 (City of Holly Springs v. Marshall County) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Mississippi Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
City of Holly Springs v. Marshall County, 61 So. 703, 104 Miss. 752 (Mich. 1913).

Opinion

Eeed, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The city of Holly Springs claims one-half of the amount of ad valorem taxes collected on property within the city for the year 1911 by the tax collector of Marshall county, in accordance with the provisions of section 4469 of the Code of 1906. The tax collector refused to pay the amount of taxes so claimed to the treasurer of the city, and paid the same to the treasurer of Marshall county, and the county treasurer also refused to pay over the amount- to the city. The streets of Holly Springs [758]*758are worked under municipal authority and at the expense of the city and were so worked in 1911. The following relative to the working of the public roads in Marshall county and the raising of funds for that purpose since 1905 is taken from the agreed statement of facts in this case:

“That on the 6th day of June, 1905, the said county of Marshall, by an order of its board of supervisors to that effect duly entered on its minutes in Minute Book Nó. 15, page 422, elected to work all its public roads by contract in accordance with the provisions of chapter 119, page 153, of Laws 1900, and so continued to work its said roads under said Laws of 1900 until the adoption of said Code of 1906, and thereafter said roads were worked under sections 4465, 4466, 4469, 4470, 4471, 4472, 4473, 4474 and 4475 of said Code, in so far as said Code provisions of said sections related to said Laws of 1900, chapter 119 therof, until the 9th day of September, 1911, when the said county of Marshall, by an order entered upon its minutes on Minute Book 17, page 493, the said board of supervisors of said county elected to come under chapter 150, page 145, Laws of 1910, as its method of working all the public roads of said county, and from that time forth to the present date has worked and maintained its public roads under said chapter 150, page 145, of Laws of Mississippi of 1910. That in addition to the eight days’ service or commutation tax provided for in said section 4469 of said Code, the board of supervisors of said county levied an ad valorem tax of two mills on the dollar on all taxable property of the said county of Marshall for the purpose of raising funds to defray the expenses incurred in the working of all its public roads and the building of its bridges in said county for said county for said year 1911.”

It is agreed that the amount involved in this suit is one-half of the ad valorem taxes collected for the year 1911 on property within the city of Holy Springs by the [759]*759county tax collector for road purposes in the county, and that the amount should be paid to the city, unless the election by the county to come under the provisions of chapter 150 of the Laws of 1910 repealed sections 6 and 7 of chapter 119 of the Laws of 1900, and section 4469 of the Code of 1906. It is contended by the appellee, Marshall county, that when the county, by order entered upon the minutes of the board of supervisors, elected to come under the provisions of chapter 150 of the Laws of 1910, then the sections of the Code of 1906 relative to working of the public roads by contract, being sections 4465 to 4475, both inclusive, were not applicable to Marshall county. The county also contends that chapter 150 presents a complete system for working the roads, entirely independent and separate from the system of working by contract, and that the law as contained in that chapter must be looked to, not only for the method of doing the work, but also for all necessary directions in the raising and disbursing of funds for the purpose of carrying on the work.

Chapter 119 of the Acts of 1900 provide a plan for the working of the public roads by contract. The law contained in this chapter, with some changes, was carried into the Code of 1906, and is contained in sections 4465 to 4475, both inclusive. After the adoption of the Code, and'prior to September 9, 1911, when the county elected to work its public roads under the provisons of chapter 150 of the Laws of 1910, Marshall county was working its public roads by contract in accordance with the Code sections. It will be noted that these 11 Code sections provide as follows: Section 4465, the method of working by contract; section 4466, for a road and bridge commissioner ; section 4467, that the supervisors of the county shall have general supervision of the roads; section 4468, for the inspection of the roads by the members of the board and the commissioner; section 4469, a general plan for raising and disbursing road funds; section 4470, [760]*760that persons subject to commutation tax could work out their time; section 4471, for the working of convicts on the roads; section 4472, for reports to be made by the supervisors; section 4473, for liability by a supervisor or contractor to indictment for neglect of duty; section 4474, that the assessor shall make assessment against all persons subject to commutation tax; and section 4475 states that “the provisions of the foregoing eleven sections shall not apply to any county in the state, except by order of the board of supervisors to that effect, duly entered on their minutes; nor shall they apply to any county already working the roads under any existing legal contract system, unless the contractors and the boards interested shall mutually agree upon such change and elect to come under the provisions of said sections.”

Now we understand that the provisons of the foregoing Code sections duly applied to Marshall county on September 9,1911, when it was decided it should come under the provisons of chapter 150. It will be observed that the legislature, in chapter 150 of the Laws of 1910, provided that the board of supervisors of a county might adopt an additional method of working the public roads and building bridges by the purchase of its own outfit and the appointment of a competent commissioner to have charge of and direct the work. It was not made obligatory on the board to so do the work, but it was left to its option. The board, if it saw fit, could adopt the additional method. Now, it will be seen that it is plainly stated in section 2 of the act that the act should not repeal any other act or alter any other method of working public roads. There is, therefore, no repeal by the words of the statute.

It is contended that the statue provides an exclusive way in which funds necessary for the work are to be raised and disbursed. We note that section 2 states that the boards may raise funds for the working of roads and building of bridges in several different ways. There [761]*761is no express direction that the board shall raise funds in any definite way. Under this section there may be a bond issue, or a commutation tax, or an ad valorem tax, or an acreage tax, or the boards may raise the funds, using the language of the statute, “by both, or any, or all of said methods.” It is clear that a new or additional method of working the public roads is provided by chapter 150; but has a definite and complete scheme for the raising and disbursing all necessary funds been provided therein, and to the extent that it excludes all other provisions of the law relative to raising funds for road purposes?

We must consider chapter 150 along and together with the provisions of the Code.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Mississippi Power & L. Co. v. Capital Elec. Power Ass'n
222 So. 2d 399 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1969)
State v. Necaise
87 So. 2d 922 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1956)
Board of Supervisors v. Parks
71 So. 2d 197 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1954)
Gambrill v. Gulf States Creosoting Co.
62 So. 2d 772 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1953)
Alexander v. Graves
173 So. 417 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1937)
Ex Parte Jackson
171 So. 545 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1937)
Zeigler v. Zeigler
164 So. 768 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1935)
Mississippi State Highway Department v. Haines
139 So. 168 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1932)
State Ex Rel. Weems v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.
128 So. 503 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1930)
Board of Sup'rs v. City of Bay St. Louis
128 So. 331 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1930)
Pan-American Petroleum Corp. v. Miller
122 So. 393 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1929)
Hartwell Handle Co. v. Jack
115 So. 586 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1928)
Board of Supervisors v. City of Meridian
114 So. 803 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1927)
New Orleans N.E.R. Co. v. Jemison
110 So. 785 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1926)
City of Bay St. Louis v. Hancock County
83 So. 276 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1919)
Board of Supervisors v. Gulf & S. I. R. R.
79 So. 90 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1918)
Town of Crenshaw v. Panola County
76 So. 741 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1917)
Adams County v. Catholic Diocese
71 So. 17 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1916)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
61 So. 703, 104 Miss. 752, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-holly-springs-v-marshall-county-miss-1913.