Roach v. Tallahatchie County

78 Miss. 303
Mississippi Supreme Court·Decided October 15, 1900·Published·Cited by 12 cases

Opinion

Calhoon, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

On. appeals from the action of boards of supervisors code, §79, requires that bills of exceptions “ shall be signed by the person acting as president. ’ ’ In the case at bar that officer refused to sign the bill, whereupon Mr. Roach, the appellant, did not proceed by mandamus, as he might have done, to compel a signature, but had it signed by two disinterested attending counsel, under code, § 737. The circuit court on the county’s motion, struck out the bill of exceptions. This action was proper under the law. Section 737 does not apply because by reading it and preceding sections from § 733, it will be seen that it is plainly restricted to circuit courts, and, therefore, no help comes from § 629. Section 555 expressly makes the circuit court law as to bills of exceptions applicable to chancery courts. There is no such provision as to boards of supervisors. Affirmed.

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

Roach v. Tallahatchie County, 78 Miss. 303 (Mich. 1900).

78 Miss. 303 (Roach v. Tallahatchie County) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

City of Jackson, Mississippi v. Ben Allen
242 So. 3d 8 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 2018)
Tunica County Board of Supervisors v. HWCC-Tunica, LLC
237 So. 3d 115 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 2017)
Charles Gallagher v. City of Waveland, Mississippi
182 So. 3d 471 (Court of Appeals of Mississippi, 2015)
Dimp Powell v. Municipal Election Commission
156 So. 3d 250 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 2014)
M.L.R. v. Pontotoc City School District Board of Trustees
46 So. 3d 874 (Court of Appeals of Mississippi, 2010)
Reed, Mayor, Etc. v. Adams
111 So. 2d 222 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1959)
Polk v. City of Hattiesburg
69 So. 675 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1915)