Case ID: miss_93/html/0188-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Whitfield, C. J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

George M. Turner v. Leflore County.
    [46 South. 258.]
    Counties. Finances. Bonds. Issuance. Notice. Code 1906, § 333.
    Under Code 1906, § 333, providing that before tbe issuance of any bonds by a county tbe board of supervisors shall (to give opportunity for protest) publish notice of tbe proposal to issue them as therein specified, tbe publication of exact copies of tbe orders of tbe board touching tbe issuance of tbe bonds, attested by tbe clerk, is sufficient.
    From the chancery court of Leflore county.
    Hon. Percy Bell, Chancellor.
    Turner, appellant, was complainant in the court below; Leflore county, appellee, was defendant there. From a decree dissolving an injunction and dismissing the suit complainant appealed to the supreme court.
    The object of the suit was to enjoin the county from issuing bonds on the ground that notice of the proposal to issue same had not been published in accordance with the provisions of Code 1906, § 333, which is as follows:
    “333 (312) The same: what to be done before issuance, etc. Before providing for the issuance of any bonds, the board '(of supervisors) shall publish notice of the proposal to issue the same in a newspaper published in the county, or, if there be no such newspaper, by posting notice thereof at the door of the courthouse and three other public places in the county, for three weeks next preceding, and if within that time ten per centum of the adult tax payers of the county, exclusive of those who pay poll taxes only, shall petition against the issuance of the bonds, then the bonds shall not be issued unless authorized by a majority of the male taxpayers voting in an election to be •ordered by the board for that purpose,” eta
    It was admitted that the only advertisement of the proposal to issue the bonds was tbe publication of exact copies of tbe orders of tbe board of supervisors touching tbe proposed issuance of tbe bonds. Tbe court below beld this to be sufficient advertisement under tbe requirements of tbe code section above quoted.
    
      McGlurg, Gardner & Whittington, Lor appellant.
    Tbe notices that were published were not in fact, and did not pretend to be anything but copies of tbe orders passed by tbe board of supervisors, and tbe orders themselves provide that notice shall be given. Tbe orders are all right as tbe preliminary step' to start tbe proceedings, but must be followed by tbe notice of intention and tbe bonds are not good unless this notice has been given, publishing an order of tbe board is insufficient and a notice must also be published.
    In GlarhsdaZe v. Broaddus, 77 Miss. 667, 28 South. 954, the town of Clarksdale intended to issue bonds and published tbe ordinance calling tbe election, but did not publish notice of tbe election and this court beld that tbe bonds could not be issued because that notice was not published.
    
      B. D. Stone, for appellee.
    Did tbe board in the case before us give tbe tax payers tbe notice contemplated by law ? By reading tbe notices as published in tbe newspapers tbe tax payers would get full knowledge of all and everything that could have been done by tbe board and of fill that bad been done in tbe present case. Tbe orders were preceded by following headings or titles: “An order in relation to tbe issuance of bonds for tbe purpose of constructing public roads.” “An order in relation to tbe issuance of bonds for tbe purpose of building bridges.”
    To present this question in another way: What more information could have been conveyed to tbe tax payers than was afforded them by reading tbe orders of tbe board as published ? Unless something bad been left out, some information withheld from the tax payers, notice of something material not given them, then the action of the board should be allowed to stand.
    It has been urged against these bonds that the case of Glarlcsdale v. Bromddus, 77 Miss. 667, 28 South. 954, decides that the publication of the order of the board is not sufficient. From a careful reading of this case it will be seen that it does not so decide.
   Whitfield, C. J.,

delivered the opinion of the court

The publication of exact copies of the orders of the board of supervisors, signed by the clerk, Was a sufficient compliance with the law as to publication of notice of the purpose to issue bonds.

Affirmed.