Daniels v. Sones

147 So. 2d 626, 245 Miss. 461, 1962 Miss. LEXIS 567
CourtMississippi Supreme Court
DecidedDecember 17, 1962
DocketNo. 42421
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 147 So. 2d 626 (Daniels v. Sones) 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
Daniels v. Sones, 147 So. 2d 626, 245 Miss. 461, 1962 Miss. LEXIS 567 (Mich. 1962).

Opinion

Gillespie, J.

Appellants, complainants below, are residents of Township 1 North, Range 16 West, Lamar County, Mississippi. They requested the attorney general and the district attorney to file this suit; both declined. The defendants below, appellees here, are the Board of Supervisors of Lamar County, the Superintendent of Education of Lamar County, the Lamar County Board of Education, the members of which also act in the capacity of trustees of Lamar County School District, and two bond dealers, Allen and Company and Alvis and Company.

The bill charged that on March 6, 1961, Lamar County Board of Education passed a resolution requesting the Board of Supervisors of Lamar County to transfer $400,000 from the principal fund of the Sixteenth Section of Township 1 North, Range 16 West, Lamar County, Miss., to a building fund to be expended by the Lamar County Board of Education for the construction of school buildings at attendance centers within the Lamar County School District, which includes practically the entire county. Lamar County Board of Supervisors had theretofore bought for said township certain county and municipal bonds as investments for the aforesaid Sixteenth Section funds for Township 1 North, Range [469]*46916 West. Tlie Board of Education adopted an order on April 17, 1961, requesting that $415,000 of face value of said bonds be sold. On May 4, 1961, the Board of Supervisors of Lamar County entered an order for the sale of the aforesaid securities to the highest and best bidder at market price, and in the same order accepted the bid of Allen & Company and Alvis & Company for $382,983, plus accrued interest, and the bonds were sold and delivered in accordance therewith. There was no public advertisement in connection with the sale of said securities. The bill charged the bonds were sold at less than actual or market value.

The complainants alleged that all of said transactions, including the sale of said bonds and the transfer of the said funds, were void and prayed for a mandatory injunction for the restoration of said bonds to the account of the township and for other relief. The funds originally used to purchase said bonds for the account of Township 1 North, Range 16 West, Lamar County, were derived from oil royalties in the Baxterville Oil Field, which included Section 16, Township 1 North, Range 16 West, Lamar County, Mississippi.

Demurrers of all defendants were sustained and the bill dismissed and the complainants appealed to this Court.

The question is whether the original bill stated a cause of action. This question has four separate points of inquiry, namely: (1) Did the sale of the securities by the Board of Supervisors violate Section 100 of the Constitution of the State of Mississippi? (2) Did the private sale of the securities by the Board of Supervisors violate Section 2925 of the Miss. Code of 1942? (3) Did the charge in the original bill as to the manner of sale and the fact that the securities were sold for less than actual market value state a cause of action against the members of the Board of Supervisors? (4) Does the legislature have .authority to authorize the ex[470]*470penditure of funds derived from Sixteenth Section lands for the support of schools in the school district which includes the township but which schools none of the children living in the township attend?

1.

Section 100 of the Constitution has no application to the sale of the bonds in question. That section provides in general that no obligation of any person, association or corporation held or owned by the county, state, city, or town shall be remitted, released, or in any way diminished by the legislature except by payment thereof into the proper treasury. In our opinion, this section of the Constitution has reference to direct obligations to the state or other governmental units such as taxes, and that it was not intended to govern the handling of bonds and other securities purchased by the state or other governmental subdivision for investment purposes.

2.

Section 2925, Miss. Code of 1942, has no application to the transaction involved in this suit. There is a specific statute dealing* with the purchase and sale of bonds and other direct obligations of the United States, the State of Mississippi, or any county or municipality in this State. Section 6532-16, Miss. Code 1942, is as follows:

“Investment of surplus funds. — Whenever any municipality, on behalf of municipal separate school districts, or any county, on behalf of any other school district, shall have on hand any bond and interest funds, any funds derived from the sale of bonds, or any other funds in excess of the sums which will be required for expenditure during the succeeding twelve months, and which are not needed or cannot by law be used for the payment of the current obligations or expenses of such [471]*471school district, the governing authorities of such municipality, or the hoard of supervisors of such county, as the case may he, shall have the power and authority to invest such excess funds in any bonds or other direct obligations of the United States of America or the State of Mississippi, or of any county or municipality of this state, which such county or municipal bonds have been approved by a reputable bond attorney or have been validated by a decree of the chancery court, and in any event the bonds or obligations in which such funds are invested shall mature or he redeemable prior to the time the funds so invested will he needed for expenditure. When bonds or other obligations have been so purchased, the same may he sold or surrendered for redemption at any time by order or resolution of such hoard of supervisors or such governing authorities, and the president of the hoard of supervisors, and the mayor of the municipality, as the case may be, when authorized by such order or resolution, shall have the power and authority to execute all instruments and take such other action as may be necessary to effectuate the sale or redemption thereof. When such bonds or other obligations are sold or redeemed, the proceeds thereof, including accrued interest thereon, shall be paid into the same fund as that from which the investment was made, and shall in all respects be dealt with as are other moneys in such fund.”

This statute deals with the specific question of investing funds by purchasing bonds described therein and the sale or surrender for redemption of such bonds when necessary. This is the statute governing the matter in question and not Sec. 2925, Miss. Code 1942, which is limited to the disposal of personal property belonging to the county or any subdivision thereof. The Sixteenth Section School Funds do not belong to the county or a subdivision thereof, hut to the school district which is a subdivision of the State. Adams County v. State Edu[472]*472cational Finance Commission, 229 Miss. 566, 91 So. 2d 524.

3.

We are of the opinion that the complainants stated a canse of action against the individual members of the Board of Supervisors.

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

Related

Mosby v. Moore
716 So. 2d 551 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1998)
Daphne Mosby v. Andrew Moore
Mississippi Supreme Court, 1995
Tally v. Board of Supervisors of Smith County
323 So. 2d 547 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1975)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
147 So. 2d 626, 245 Miss. 461, 1962 Miss. LEXIS 567, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/daniels-v-sones-miss-1962.