The weekly clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1863-1882, 1880-12-16
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS.
Reported for The Clarion by L. Brame. Attor-
ney-at-Law, Jackson, Miss
OCTOBER TERM, 1880.
r F. BEcE, TAX COLLECTOR,
No. 351s.
- orlns r A lInn


levied for the year 1880; or, if that could MOI
be done, for an injunction against all over IF
teen mills en- the dollar He rendered eighteen
mills, three Of which constituted the state tax
and an injunction granted against the col
lection Of the excess. The county levies. with
the state tax, amounted to twenty-five mills.
Appellant defendant below made motion
10 dissolve the injunction which being over
ruled be appealed.
The other facts necessary to be considered
are stated below. synopsis of each of the
opinions is given.
GEORGE, j. delivered the opinion of the court.
n fl is insisted that the county levy is void
because there valid order Of he board
OF supervisors imposing il. The board met M
the proper time, sept mber9, 1880, and agreed
to the levy, bur adjourned before the order
making il was entered on the minutes The
cle. Tx entered the order and at the next meet
ing first Monday in October, the minutes were
read over in the presence of the board and
signed by the president.
This nc ion had the effect at least to make
che minutes valid from the time Of approval
and signing. The order making the levy was
certaiuly z ,oi from and after that time. Sec
MON PISA. Cole 1880, provides for calling
special meeting Of the board to make the levy.
II not made at the proper time; but if a special
meeting Is not called, the levy may be made at
the next re- uiar meeting The oh ject is to have
the taxes levied promptly at the frst meeting
Cd
ND florence whether that is special or reg
ular meeting.
= The bin charges that the warrants, for the
payment of which certain OF the levies were
made ncrs ia great part Illegal, because the
allowances we've not made in accordance with
the statute. Laws 1871 p Is. This statute re-
qufrad the yeas and nay : to be entered in case
OF every allowance By the board, and the cita-
ton iu che order OF the particular law under
which it was made. The clerk was prohibi
from issuing warrants on allowances in dsre-
g nv fzrI
Warrants issued in violation Of this statute
are clearly void, and they would constitute no
ayOucber in the hands of the treasurer if he
should pay them But the objection is not
nvailab.e IN this proceeding. Ii the debts were
valid they still exist, Notwithstanding the H.
legal allowance of them; and it is the duty of
the board TO levy within prescribed limits |
taxes sufficient 10 pay all valid debts against
B. I. is alleged that some of the debs on
which these warrants are based were contract |
ell lu working the public roads, and for build |
ing bridges--uch contracts being made by in
dIviIual members Of the board in vacation /
and others for extra services" by members Of /
the board in making contracts and supervis-
ing the work
There is no authority in the board of superv- |
spr- 10 uuy for public roads with the revenue /
ut tue county Necessary work for that purpose |
d. 60 be- uoAe by persons liable to road duty.
The allowance for extra services Is IN
warranted. The members Of the board are |
trustees, charged with a public duty. their
salary is fixed by law, and they cannot allow /
themselves additional compensation under /
any circumstances.
The debt. attempted to be contracted bv |
individual members letting ont contracts in
vacation 20 build bridges are invalid and no
subsequent ratification of such contracts can
Iuplrt to them validity. Supervisors V. 1r-
TtgAI 81 Miss, GtS
But, Notwithstanding the nvalidity Of these
HaHts. the Injunction can not be maintained
ON tb1t ground. Ia the first place, the debts
or warrants claimed to be illegal not spec
fled The allegation IS, that they are in great
part void and illegal on the grounds stated. I
This is too vague.
Ia the next place the holders of the warrants /
were not before the court. They mi ght sue
cesssulIy deny the charges to the invalidity !
of the warrants and II would be wrong to
cujoin the raising of n fund to pay their
debts withou giving them hearing.
Within the limit prescribed, the board |
should not be jnterferei with in levying taxes /
on mere allegation of excess in the levy |
because some OF the debts intended to be /
provided for are invalid. This allegation /
might turn out 10 be untrue at time when it /
would be too late to collect the taxes for that
year.
may eujoIn the county treasurer from paying !
the illegal claims, and the holders may be /
made parties Ii the lIlegaiity Is apparent on !
the face of the minutes OF the board mere /
notice to the treasurer would be sufficient to /
compel him 10 withhold payment
T. the position that the local acts of 1871
and 1873, under which special levies we're /
made, ana which aut horized the board to issue /
bonds and required the levy of a special tax
10 meet tham are repealed by the act of 1880 /
is uuteu8hlc. Acts of that character not !
presumed to be within the words of repeal in
"a general law.
Il .sdcs, these special taxes were intended /
as a security tor the bonds authorized to be !
issued, and the regular collection OF them was
a part OF the obligation OF the contract.
The case Is different with respect to the
special tax authorized by z 4 OF the act OF
1873 p. 32l, for this special levy is expressly |
res ricted to the limits prescribed by the
general laws in relation to county levies.
The tax of one and half mills authorized
by the second section Of the act OF 1913 Is
levied only on school district and is not
within the terms prescribed by the act OF
1850 which refers to county leyies and not TO
assessments 20 pay debt due Ivy any districi
in the county.
s. The supervisors Levied twenty-five mills.
Under the general and local statutes they had
the power TO levy eighteen mills leaving out
of consideration the right TO levy special
taxes under 10, art. - of the constitution.
Inasmuch a. the Chancellor enjoined all over
fifteen mills, his order was certainly erroneous
to the three mills euJolned.
[Up TO this point the Judges were agreed.
As to the question hereafter stated, Judge
Campbell dissented.
6. Section 10, article r. constitution of
Mississippi. is follows:
No county shall be denied the right to
raise BY special tax money sufficient u pay
for the building and repairing OF court houses,
jails bridges and other necessary conVen-
fences for the people of the county; and
priated for any other purposei Prorfded, the
tax thus levied shall be a certain per cent.
on all tax levied by the state.
As five of the twenty-five mills levied were
for bridge taxes, the appellant claims that the
whole levy should be sustained. Can the Act
in relation to Public Revenue OF March b,
1850 which limits the power Of boards Of super
visors in levyiHg taxes, be conshtUtiOnally
applied to special levics for bridge taxes?
That the legislature interded to embrace
these levies within the restriction, seems
clear from the language OF the statute
Ii is insisted that that the constitution con,
fers on boards of supervisors the unrestricted
right 10 raise by special tax whatever sum,
however large, they may deem necessary Tor
the purposes named, and that the general SUI
pervisory and controlling power of the Iegis-
lature, Acknowledged to exist as to all other
matters OF county taxation is excluded by the
terms of the section above quoted
We cannot give our assent to this construc-
ton. On the contrary, think the section
does not exclude the control of the legislature,
but contains command or direction TO that
body. The language is that Of direction 10
department having the right TO grant or deny
the power of taxation; not that which is APP
propriate to vesting new power on body
no; before possessing It. -,
Without an express affirmative grant in the
constitution to the contrary. the taxing power
of the board was wholly within the control
of the legislature. In fact the board OF super
visOrs in the absence of such provision,
would have no power whatever 10 tax, until
authorized by the legislature.
The power to grant to counties and corpora
tions the right to levy local taxes, ana 70 reg
ulate its exercise, is firmly settled legisla-
tive power in American and English Jurls pFa-
dence. CaIdcsE V. Burke, Jones IN C.I
Eq. Il. 222
A county or city has no inherent right OF
taxation. They exert the taxing power by
delegation from the state. Duly v Scope -
Miss. 367
Section l. article 4. of the constitution vests
the power of exclusive control over local tax
alton in the legislature, under the grant Of all
legislature power; and IN article ., 2" - .