Title: Leigh v. BD. OF SUP'RS OF NESHOBA COUNTY

State: mississippi

Issuer: Mississippi Supreme Court

Document:

525 So. 2d 1326 (1988) Dr. J.H. LEIGH, et al. v. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF NESHOBA COUNTY, Mississippi, Individually and in Their Official Capacity. No. 57735. Supreme Court of Mississippi. May 18, 1988. Ken Turner, Philadelphia, for appellants. Donald L. Kilgore, J. Max Kilpatrick, Philadelphia, for appellee. Edward A. Williamson, Philadelphia, for Wallace Cox. Before DAN M. LEE, P.J., and PRATHER and SULLIVAN, JJ. SULLIVAN, Justice, for the Court: On November 28, 1984, a petition was filed with the Neshoba County Board of Supervisors calling upon them to submit a proposition to the voters of Neshoba County regarding the sale of a hospital and nursing home. On a four to one vote the board of supervisors found that the proposition was not within its legal authority and an appeal was taken to the Circuit Court of Neshoba County, Judge Ernest L. Brown, Special Judge, Presiding, and the board's decision was affirmed. As a result, this appeal followed with the following assignments of error: I. That the lower court erred in holding that the subject petition is a multiple proposition petition; and II. That the lower court and the Board of Supervisors have failed to comply with Section 19-3-55, Mississippi Code Annotated (1972). The petition was filed pursuant to Mississippi Code Annotated, Section 19-3-55 (1972), and asked the Neshoba County Board of Supervisors to submit the following proposition to Neshoba County voters: The petition was in response to information that the board had accepted proposals for the sale of Neshoba County General Hospital and Neshoba County Nursing Home. The petition contained the signatures of over 6,400 registered Neshoba County voters. On April 12, 1985, the board made the following findings: The third finding was appealed to the Circuit Court of Neshoba County which affirmed the board's findings by written order on May 7, 1986. The trial court found that the proposition submitted to the Board called for the determination of three questions: 1. Whether the ownership of the Neshoba County General Hospital and Neshoba County Nursing Home remain in Neshoba County, 2. Whether it would continue to be operated as a community hospital and nursing home, 3. Whether it would be sold without first submitting the issue to the people by election. The court found that the petition called for one election to determine whether another would be held to determine if the hospital and nursing home were to be sold. The trial judge employed the rationale of cases dealing with proposed amendments to the Mississippi Constitution wherein it has been noted that "Section 273 of the Constitution provides that whenever an attempt is made to amend the Constitution, that `if more than one amendment shall be submitted at one time, they shall be submitted in such manner and form that the people may vote for each amendment separately' ..." State Ex. rel. Collins v. Jones, 106 Miss. 522, 543, 64 So. 241, 242 (1914). See Power v. Robertson, 130 Miss. 188, 93 So. 769 (1922), and State Ex. Rel. McClurg v. Powell, 77 Miss. 543, 27 So. 927 (1900). Reasoning from these cases, the trial court, having decided that the petition was multi-propositional, found that the board was eminently correct in holding that they were without authority to grant the petition. Leigh argues that the rule cited by the trial court does not apply in this case because the petition does not present a multiple proposition. The only question presented by the petition is, "Should the Board of Supervisors be able to sell the Neshoba County Hospital and Nursing Home without first letting the citizens of Neshoba County vote on that issue?" Furthermore, even if the petition is multi-propositional, Leigh argues that State v. Powell places the petition within the jurisdiction of the board of supervisors when it says that "In order to constitute more than one amendment, the proposition submitted must relate to more than one subject, and have at least two distinct and separate purposes not dependent upon or connected with each other." State v. Powell, 77 Miss. 543, 574, 27 So. 927 (1900) quoting State v. Timme, 54 Wis. 318, 336 11 N.W. 785, 791 (1882). The board submits that a voter could take a mixture of affirmative and negative positions on the three questions as outlined by the trial court and remain perfectly consistent, and furthermore, the board argues that Dr. Leigh has failed to prove manifest error on the part of the trial court. International Harvester Co. v. Peoples Bank & Trust Co., 402 So. 2d 856, 860 (Miss. 1981). *1328 We are of the opinion that the manifest error doctrine does not apply to a decision from the board of supervisors as the appellants had no access to a jury trial and therefore should not be held to the manifest error standard on this appeal. In S & A Realty Co. v. Hilburn, 249 So. 2d 379, 381-382 (Miss. 1971), former Chief Justice Neville Patterson wrote: See also, Mississippi State Highway Commission v. Dixie Contractors, 402 So. 2d 811, 812 (Miss. 1981). Therefore, the only question presented by this assignment is whether the petition submitted by Dr. Leigh is in fact multi-propositional. This question is ultimately a factual issue to be decided by this Court. We are of the opinion that the petition presents only one question as submitted by the appellants and that is, "Should the Board of Supervisors be able to sell the Neshoba County Hospital and Nursing Home without first letting the citizens of Neshoba County vote on that issue?" The proposition on its face asks only one question. Furthermore, based on State v. Powell, supra, 77 Miss. at 574, 27 So. 927, the proposition relates to only one subject and one purpose and as such is not faulty under the case law relied on by the court below. We, therefore, find that the trial judge was in error when he found that the petition was multi-propositional, and consequently, not within the jurisdiction of the board of supervisors. The petition was filed pursuant to Mississippi Code Annotated, Section 19-3-55 (1972), which provides: Once the board determined that the matter affected the entire county and that the petition contained the signatures of twenty-five percent (25%) of the qualified voters of Neshoba County, then Section 19-3-55 provides that the Board must either: (1) put *1329 the matter to a vote; or (2) pass an order putting the proposition into effect. In Gill v. Woods, 226 So. 2d 912 (Miss. 1969), this Court said: Gill v. Woods, 226 So. 2d 912, 918 (Miss. 1969).[1] Because we are of the opinion that the petition presents only one question, the board is required to either hold the election or put the proposition in force and effect. There is no merit to the board's argument that it cannot legally respond to the petition because the matter is not yet spread on its minutes. Neither Section 19-3-55 nor Gill v. Woods requires the matter to be spread on the board's minutes in order for the board to act on the petition. Any ruling which would require voters to wait until their governing board takes "official action" before they can petition is impractical and would unnecessarily impede the right of the people to petition. The board argues that action in compliance with Section 19-7-3 regarding disposal of real estate belonging to a county is a prerequisite to any action under § 19-3-55.[2] Mississippi Code Annotated, § 19-7-3 provides: Section 19-7-3 clearly applies to real estate belonging to a county which has ceased to be used for county purposes. This statute does not apply to the hospital and nursing home here at issue as they have not ceased to be used for county purposes. Furthermore, Section 19-7-3 governs the procedure to be followed when and if the voters elect that the hospital and nursing home be sold. Section 19-7-3 in no way conflicts with Section 19-3-55 governing petitions. The board of supervisors' argument on this point is without merit. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the lower court was in error when it held that the petition herein was multi-propositional. The board of supervisors had jurisdiction and Section 19-3-55 mandated the action that it must take. This cause is, therefore, reversed and remanded to the trial court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION. ROY NOBLE LEE, C.J., HAWKINS and DAN M. LEE, P.JJ., and PRATHER, ROBERTSON, ANDERSON, GRIFFIN and ZUCCARO, JJ., concur. [1] Section 3018, Mississippi Code Annotated (1942), is now Section 19-3-55. [2] This argument was apparently made at trial but does not appear in the record. It was not addressed in appellants' initial brief or the circuit court order.