The weekly clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1863-1882, 1882-10-18

session of the board could be held, unless the
alteration prescribed had been followed, and
therefore that either the August or September
term was ILLEGAL as the were both neid al
Raymond. The objection to such construc-
ton Il, that the legality o. any meeting OF
the Eoard, would depend 1pon hat u Other
precsdent sessions the validity of eaca OF
which would / n turn, rest upon thai OF osher
anterior terms. Such construction Of the act
would produce appalling consequences and
confusion both as 10 the past AMI future &C
ton at the Board. If as is probable, e- pos
sible, Ia-lv in the operation OF this act, some
blunder Of error Ia jRdg sent was committees
and tgo successive sessions We e held IN Ray
mond o. Jack SOB are all It's subsequent ses-
sious nnlas iul2 Are al caa4rssts maze.
iudguse nts gend d, orders ertae expenditure
Of county fanss and leytes Of ha-es 10 De held
as void unless. By fappy ch1nce, second
error mas restored the SUI ession One MS
take would 5nyalida All subsequent ses-
SONS. The second er.or would correct the
evil bui the thi,.d would seD o, nee 1t, and so,
the validity OF any set OF tt ipoTtaaf boay,
woHid be determined, not ~ any kneWn or
eefta stan8afa bot by discovering Wh 'ther
its precedent errors were OF an odd or even
number.
In Jones VS.. Bur ord, &c Mss, 194 il was de-
cided shat 4 special Meeting of the Board of
Police, held without the President OF the
Boagi having FIST siVea the ten DAYS notice
prescribed by the sla.u-e was void. SO also as
% e sess. on held at line or Dtaae uos author
or eel ~ law Ctmheli VS.. Witty, 10 3iIss j,
2j; johnson vs.. Fe L. % Mss, a.
Boz this case is dstiDgpistable from all o.
these q this, that a those be act to be lone,
or be time and ,,lEce at which tae sessions
were 10 be held were definite ala lied by .he
law there was no uncertain Y, no room Tor
dou5i, 10 avesesgatioa of past transactioss.
Ii ne act Of 1876 IS Derempto y, tue / SalI,y Of
any session is not aete- 4Diuable bF s3v hing
short of a examina zion OF the history OF every
precedent session since The attop,iOI o. The
law the body OF to-day ii it Should attempt
to satisfy itself of the legally of any tea pro
posed to be held, would have TO go ido an
INQUIRY touching not olly their own past acts,
but of those of t6eir predecessors, anu OF re
predecessors of their pr edecessoEs. A con-
struc ion producing res1t so miseh4eyous
canaot be adopted, the act must be held 10 be
directory, a.ld though nd,ng unol he MEM
befs Of the boards rendering shem Table 10
prosecution Tor It's willsul disregard. as not
making void he sessions Of The boaed tbeugh
they are not held IN cenfoFut.g with its le-
q 1irements.
The failure Of he collector 10 make AID fife
W. h the clerk OF the Chance y Con It sepaFate
ISIS OF the land sold to the Safe and to indi-
yiduals on or before the first Monday o. April
succeed az fhe sale, as i. "ected By section ~
of he act Of 1878 does not at all aneet re tile
of the purchaser By section of arsiele Y of
the Cons tuition it is declared that The coats
shall apply tie same liberal prinGip IN
favor Of seen tiles, Ca1 tiilesl Is in safes by
execution
But for This constitutional provision the
title of q purchaser at a sale COR taxes would
depend upon a strict compliance ny the Officer
with all the statutory requireme as, buC with
us if the power to sell e. ISIS, no me.e reCu-
ritv in IS exercise viii avoid he sale. City
of Najchez vs. Minor 10 S. & NJ 255; Virde1 |
vs. Bowers 80 Miss, l.
These v ews render IN necessary the cous. d |
Grafton of the cura i've act of 1889. Tue decree |
is reversed and cause remanded for decree |
in accordance with this decision.
ITO ne reported.