Title: Reed v. Evans

State: mississippi

Issuer: Mississippi Supreme Court

Document:

342 So. 2d 290 (1976) Jack K. REED, Superintendent, Mississippi State Penitentiary v. Monroe H. EVANS. No. 49075. Supreme Court of Mississippi. August 24, 1976. Rehearing Denied October 12, 1976. A.F. Summer, Atty. Gen., by James M. Ward, Special Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellant. Ronald Reid Welch, Herman (Tex) Wilson, Jackson, for appellee. Before GILLESPIE, SMITH and WALKER, JJ. SMITH, Justice, for the Court. The State of Mississippi appeals from the action of the Circuit Court of Sunflower County which would have required payment to appellee, Monroe Harold Evans, of $314.66 from State funds. In 1973, while Evans was an inmate of Camp 8 of the penitentiary at Parchman, Camp 8 was made a "close confinement camp" under special rules and regulations. A "shakedown" of the Camp followed, in the course of which all personal property of the convicts was inventoried and removed. An electric fan, a portable radio, an electric stencil, several shirts, a coffeepot, a portable typewriter, and a radio tape player, were taken from Evans. An official receipt was issued to him for these articles. The receipt introduced into evidence, bears a stipulation "O.K." and "not returned." The record shows that these notations were made in the course of an investigation and do not indicate a return of the property to Evans. All of the personal property, including that of Evans, was stored in the boiler room at the penitentiary. A few days later, the circumstances which had brought about the above measures, no longer existing, penitentiary officials undertook to return to the prisoners the articles which had been taken from them. It is stipulated in the record in this case that the radio, tape player and typewriter were not returned to Evans. At the trial of the case the court found that the typewriter, radio, tape player and coffeepot had not been returned to Evans. The record makes it clear that these articles had disappeared while in official custody of penitentiary authorities and could not be found. There seems to be no question but that Evans was permanently deprived of his property through negligence on the part of penitentiary employees who failed to make any provision whatever for its protection from theft or loss. This is not controverted by the State. On appeal there is only one assignment of error. The circuit court erred in directing payment to Evans of $314.66, the undisputed value of the property, from public funds *291 appropriated by the State of Mississippi for the express purpose of operating the penitentiary since such an award is barred by the sovereign immunity of the State of Mississippi, the State's consent to the suit not having been obtained. This Court has said: In Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1, 10 S. Ct. 504, 33 L. Ed. 842 (1890), the United States Supreme Court quoted Hamilton in Federalist No. 81: After quoting extensively from Madison and Marshall, the Court, in upholding the sovereignty doctrine, said: The Court quoted Chief Justice Taney in Beers et al. v. Arkansas, 61 U.S. 527, 529, 20 How. 527, 529, 15 L. Ed. 991 (1858): And concluded: In Principality of Monaco v. The State of Mississippi, 292 U.S. 313, 54 S. Ct. 745, 78 L. Ed. 1282 (1934), the United States Supreme Court, through Chief Justice Hughes, quoted extensively from the Hans case, supra, and outlined five different questions of sovereign immunity under the Federal Constitution involving a State of the Union. The Court distinguished suits brought against a State of the Union (a) by another State of the Union; (b) by the United States; (c) by a citizen of another State or by citizens and subjects of a foreign State; (d) by citizens of the same State or a federal corporation; and (e) by foreign states. Under the Federal Constitution a suit against a State could be brought in the first two categories (a and b) in federal court without the consent of the defendant State but not in the last three mentioned categories (c, d and e). See generally consent to Suit Against A State, 42 A.L.R. 1464, 50 A.L.R. 208. Evans has had outstanding representation in the case. The brief in Evans' behalf reflects thorough research of the authorities and puts forward several ingenuous and attractive arguments. The case was also ably argued orally. However, we are without power to grant the relief sought. In Ayres v. Board of Trustees of Leake County Agricultural High School et al., 134 Miss. 363, 98 So. 847 (1924), this Court said: This Court has said further: A state agency is not liable for the negligence of its agents. Curtis v. Mississippi State Highway Commission, 195 So. 2d 497 (Miss. 1967). Under the doctrine of sovereign immunity, the trial court was without power to require payment of the claim from state funds. As we have said, there was no defense offered in this case except the State's sovereign immunity from suit. Otherwise, Evans would, under principles of natural justice be entitled to recover. On the basis of the record, it would appear to us that this may be one of those rare cases in which the Legislature might wish to make a special appropriation for the purpose of reimbursing Evans for his loss. This, however, is a matter within the province of the Legislature and is a matter exclusively for its determination. REVERSED AND JUDGMENT HERE FOR APPELLANT. GILLESPIE, C.J., PATTERSON and INZER, P. JJ., and ROBERTSON, SUGG, WALKER, BROOM and LEE, JJ., concur. GILLESPIE, Chief Justice, for the Court. In the petition for rehearing, Evans' counsel relies solely on the case of Williams v. Walley, 295 So. 2d 286 (Miss. 1974), in which this Court stated as follows: The opinion of Walley stated, "This is not a mere tort action but one to provide a remedy for a constitutionally guaranteed right." In that case, the public authorities removed a fence and took the top soil from land on which Walley had a lease and used the soil in building a public road. The public authorities not only took the property but took it "for public use." The opinion in Walley, in discussing Section 17 of the Constitution of Mississippi, did not use the term "public use" but that was the basis of the decision. Section 17 provides in part: "Private property shall not be taken or damaged for public use, except upon due compensation being first made to the owner... ." (Emphasis added) Public use is used more than once in the section and it is the key word in the section. In the present case, public officials took Evans' property but they did not take the property for the purpose of using it for any public purpose. Therefore, as pointed out in the original opinion, the taking of Evans' property constituted a tort, or at least the failure to return his property was tortious. But as noted in Walley, Section 17 is not applicable to a "mere tort" action. For the reasons stated, Williams v. Walley, supra, does not apply to this case, and the Court may not give judgment against the State absent legislative consent. *295 PETITION FOR REHEARING CONSIDERED EN BANC AND DENIED. All Justices concur.