Case ID: miss_49/html/0639-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Tap.bell, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Mayfield Reese v. Board of Police Lee County.
    1. Donation.--Where R. donated fen acres of land, in Tupelo, to the count-} of Dee, as an inducement to the selection of Tupelo as the county seat; provided, that it was chosen by the electors; and that place was so chosen, and a bill filed for specific performance. Eeld: That it was not error to decree a specific performance.
    Appeal from the Chancery court of Lee county, Hon. O. H. Whitfield, Chancellor.
    The facts in this case appear sufficiently in the opinion of the court.
    
      Sale -<& Dov)f for appellant,
    filed an elaborate brief.
    
      Green <& Pieltens, for appellees.
    This case has been before this court before, and was determined in favor of the appellee, upon the identical objections that are now raised against the decree.
    We think this conclusive of all the assignments of error.
    See, also, Acts of the Legislature of 1866, page 32, section 4, organising Lee county. This section authorises the board of “ police” to acquire, by donation or purchase, any quaniity of' land, for the use of the county.
    As to the general jurisdiction of the boards of police, on eourt house questions, we refer the court to, Odeneal, Prest., V. Barry et al.) 24 Miss. R., page 9; Mohet v. Jones, 10 S. & M., 243,
   Tap.bell, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court:

An election Was pending in Lee county, for the location of the court-house, and other county buildings. There were several rival localities, and among others, Tupelo. As an inducement for the selection of,Tupelo, the appellant executed to the board of police his bond;, in writing, donating to the use of the county, ten acres of land in Tupelo, provided that place should be chosen by the electors, Tupelo was successful, feat Mr. Reese, for reasons given, declined to complete his promise. Hence, a bill for specific performance. A demurrer thereto was sustained, and a writ of error was prosecuted to the high court of errors and appeals. In reversing the decree of the court below, our predecessors declared the law upon the whole case. The cause being remanded, there was an answer, which was made a cross-bill, and answer thereto, and testimony, upon which, on final hearing, there was a decree for specific performance, and hence another appeal. It is assigned for error, only, that the court erred in its decree. Referring to the determination of this case by our predecessors, as settling the law governing it: Laws of Miss., 1866, p. 32, § 4; act creating Lee county; 24 Miss., 9; Code 1867, art. 20, p. 417; ib., art. 34, p. 419; 23 Miss., 548; 10 S. & M., 237; Const. 1857, § 20, art. 4; Const. 1865, § 20, art. 4; Const. 1870, § 20, art. 6 ; Code of 1871, art. 4, p. 273 ; ib., § 1367; the decree appealed from is affirmed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings, in accordance therewith.