Franklin v. Ellis

93 So. 738, 130 Miss. 164
CourtMississippi Supreme Court
DecidedSeptember 15, 1922
DocketNo. 22880
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 93 So. 738 (Franklin v. Ellis) 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
Franklin v. Ellis, 93 So. 738, 130 Miss. 164 (Mich. 1922).

Opinion

Holden, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an injunction suit filed by M. H. Ellis and others as resident taxpayers, against L. C. Franklin and others, who constitute the board of levee commissioners for the Yazoo-Mississippi Delta levee district chartered by chapter 168, Laws of 1884, seeking to enjoin the levee board from paying the salaries of certain employees of the board, namely, Major T. G. Dabney, consulting engineer, B. B. Bagley, superintendent of maintenance, Lee Trimble, foreman of maintenance, and O. S. Longino, paymaster. These employees were employed by the board for a term of two years by contract at certain salaries, to wit, four thousand fiv-e hundred dollars per annum for the said Dabney, two thousand four hundred dollars per annum, for Bagley, one thousand three hundred and eighty dollars per annum for the said Trimble, and one thousand eight hundred dollars per annum for the said Longino ; the contract of employment extending into the year of 1924.

The basis of the complaint against the payment of the salaries of these employees is that the act of the Legisla[183]*183ture of 1922, chapter 170, passed March 31,1922, expressly provides for the number and character of employees of the board, and regulates the salaries to be paid- to them, and that the payment by the board of the salaries to the employees named above would be in violation of said act of the legislature.'

The bill further seeks to enjoin the board from paying out large sums of money for certain quantities of materials and labor contracted for and used in preventing a breach of the levee line at Devil’s Hole in Tunica county during the recent high water of the Mississippi river, because the contracts for said materials and labor were made by the board in violation of, and without first complying with, chapters 169 and 170 of the Acts of 1922.

Without setting out the entire legislative acts involved we shall refer to the substance of the pertinent parts applicable to the case. Chapter 169 provides that, except in cases of emergency to be mentioned later, the board is required to let all contracts for material and work in connection with the maintenance or repair of the levees by advertisement for three weeks in a newspaper, and the board shall receive bids for said work and award the contract to the lowest responsible bidder.

It is also further provided in the act that — “When a grave emergency caused by high water or caving banks shall exist along the levee line of said district and said emergency, its cause, and probable effect, shall be certified to said board of levee commissioners by the chief engineer of said levee district; and said levee board of commissioners shall find after personal investigation and inspection that said emergency actually exists; and the findings of said board of levee commissioners, together with the certificate of the chief engineer of said levee district as to said emergency, shall be placed of record on the minutes and proceedings of said board of commissioners either at the regular or special meeting of said board or in vacation ; the said board of commissioners may then, without [184]*184advertising the same as above provided, proceed to let any necessary contract for emergency work.”

Chapter 170 provides that the board shall have a president, a chief engineer, an assistant chief engineer, an attorney or firm of attorneys, a pump engineer, a secretary and treasurer, a caretaker, and such other clerical and stenographic help as needed, and such common laborers as may be deemed necessary to carry on the work of the board, but that said board shall have no other paid officers or employees, except in cases of emergency. The act then prescribes that the salary or compensation of the officers and employees shall be fixed by the board within certain limitations, which we think is unnecessary to set out.

Thus it will be observed the bill is for the purpose of permanently restraining the board from paying the salaries of the employees hired by contract with the board prior to the passage of the said chapter 170, because such -contract of employment is contrary to the terms of the act.

And second, the suit is to prevent the board from paying for the work done or materials purchased by the board, because the board failed to comply with said chapter 169, in failing to advertise and let to lowest bidder, or declaring an emergency situation.

The answer and defense of the levee board, in short, is that the board had already contracted with the employees for a term of two years at certain and fixed compensation, and chapter 170 is void as an impairment of the obligation of contract, because it was enacted after the contract of employment was made by the board, and void as an unreasonable interference with the exercise of the constitutional power of the ievee commissioners in efficiently carrying on the necessary work to preserve the levee system.

And second, the board admits that it contracted for work and material used in repairing and maintaining the levee line without first complying with said chapter 169, but wholly disregarded the act for the reason that the work [185]*185to be performed and the materials necessary thereto were needed and used in an emergency in an effort to preserve the levee against flood waters and protect the lives and property of the levee district; that the occasion being one of emergency the board could not have efficiently, and successfully functioned if it had waited and complied with the requirements of the act.

The levee board therefore contends that said chapter 169 is unconstitutional and void because it impairs or destroys the efficient functioning of the board in cases of emergency requiring quick action to prevent a breaking of the levee line. It is urged that the levee board is created by article 11 of the state constitution, and that section 232 thereof provides that “the commissioners of said levee districts shall have supervision of the erection, repair, and maintenance of the levees in their respective districts,” which power so granted cannot be unreasonably restricted so as to impair its efficient exercise by the levee commissioners.

The position taken by the levee board was attempted to be sustained by proof before the chancellor, showing that the requirements of the act are such that the board could not efficiently exercise its constitutional power of supervision of the maintenance and repair of the levees in cases of emergency, because of the delay incident to the requirements of the act before work by the board could be commenced. The testimony was admitted over the objection of the appellee; and we think it was competent, and shall consider it in reaching our conclusions in the case.

The lower court decreed that said chapter 169 was unconstitutional because it was unreasonable and impaired the proper functioning of the board in cases of emergency, and thus restricted or destroyed the exercise of the full supervising power of the board as granted by the Constitution. And. second, the chancellor held that said chapter 170 was constitutional as a regulation, and not an impairment of the obligation of contract.

[186]*186We shall consider and discuss chapter 169 first. This act was intended to regulate the manner and method of contracting for labor and material used in the erection, repair, and maintenance of the levees, by requiring that such contracts be let to the lowest responsible bidder after due public notice.

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

Related

State v. Board of Levee Commissioners for the Yazoo-Mississippi Delta
932 So. 2d 12 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 2006)
McKnight v. Mound Bayou Public School Dist.
879 So. 2d 493 (Court of Appeals of Mississippi, 2004)
National Surety Co. v. Miller
124 So. 251 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1929)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
93 So. 738, 130 Miss. 164, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/franklin-v-ellis-miss-1922.