Love v. Board of Supervisors

72 So. 230, 111 Miss. 802
CourtMississippi Supreme Court
DecidedMarch 15, 1916
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 72 So. 230 (Love v. Board of Supervisors) 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
Love v. Board of Supervisors, 72 So. 230, 111 Miss. 802 (Mich. 1916).

Opinion

Smith, C. J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The only question presented to us by this record is the validity vel non of the bonds here sought to be issued. Chapter 257, Laws of 1912, provides a method for working all the roads of a county or district, while chapter 176, Laws of 1914, provides a method for constructing and maintaining, not roads generally, but specially selected highways. There is no conflict, therefore, between the objects sought to be accomplished by the two statutes. The money realized from the sale of bonds under chapter 257, Laws of 1912, can be used in constructing all of the roads of a county or district; but the money realized from the sale of bonds under chapter 176, Laws of 1914, can be used only in constructing and maintaining the highways selected in accordance with that statute; the intention of the legislature evidently being that the highways constructed under chapter 176 should be of a higher grade than the roads usually constructed under the laws applicable to all of the roads of a county or district. We are therefore of the opinion that it is within the power of the board of supervisors to issue the bonds here called in question.

We have not overlooked the case of Jones v. Board of Supervisors, 70 So. 404. That case is authority for two propositions only: First, that a road district which had issued bonds under chapter 176, Laws of 1914, could not thereafter be placed by the board of supervisors under the provisions of chapter 174, Laws of 1914, for the reason that the board was expressly forbidden so to do by section 14 of the latter statute; and, second, that the board was without power to place the district under chapter 174, Laws of 1914, without giving notice of its intention so to do, as provided by section 1 of that statute.

There is no merit in the objection raised to the form of the ballot.

Affirmed.

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

Related

Payne v. Board of Sup'rs
106 So. 625 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1926)
Mobile & Ohio R. R. v. Trapp
80 So. 553 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1918)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
72 So. 230, 111 Miss. 802, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/love-v-board-of-supervisors-miss-1916.