The comet. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1877-1882, 1882-10-28

been interposed to the assessmen
have been heard aud determined
md all proper objections made, which
hings are required 70 be flrst dOsie, o.
lnarIly IL Approvat would natufsIi,
| III approving the asssasment III,
qaro acts quasi judiclally, II raths
ndeog q the assessment Is I whole
than q any iDolatod fact OF seporatl
| part o0octIue the rights Of any pnrtlc
n ular pogsof1. ~ any error or irregn
Il layity hoa foooprrqd 10 any provl0u
ipcocosdInG, the lndlsId1nl injuFet
thereby has At the proper time hsC
opportunity for excepting but X vi
lprIoK ACTS have been regulai and legal
the approval by the board NJ matter
Is to which no objection would b
heard. This approval, isIVin fact
rather 3 declaration that the assess'
ment IL completed, than an adjudica'
ton Of Its legality, and 1t Ii wholly Inn
material to the tax payer whether Il
IL made at one term or another. It Il
only necessary to be made at all, be-
cause the legislature required It to bs
done.
It ID shown by the record that the
meeting Of the board Of supervisors Of
the 2lst OF July Was held at Raymond;
that on the first Monday Of August
they met at Raymond and continued
there In session five days when they
adjourned to meet In Jackson, on the
Monday next following, on which
day they met In Jackson, and con-
tinued In session two days, when they
adjourned until the regular 6eptem-
ter term, which was hsldIn the town
Of Raymond, and then an order was
made approving the assessment and
levying the county taxes.
BY sn act approved January ~,
1916, (acts Of 1873 p. 1885, 1t was enact
ed that thereafter the board OF super
visors OF Kinds county be aud they
are hereby required to bold sessions
Of said board alternately at the court
house at Raymond, In the second
judicial circuit court district, aud at
the city of jackson In the first district
of said circuit cOurt and IN the city
hall, the court house Of said district
1t is contended by counsel for the APP
pellee that this act IL mandatory, and
that no legal 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 they
were both held ut Raymond. The
objection to such construction is, that
the legality of any meeting OF the
board would depend upon that Of
other precedent sessions, the validity
of which would In turn rest upon that
Of other anterior terms. Such con-
struction OF the act would produce
appalling consequences and confusion,
both as to the past and future action
of the board. II, as Is probable or
possible carry In the operation Of the
act some biunder or error In judgment
was committed, and two successive
sessions were held In Raymond or
jackson, are all Its Subsequent sessions
unlawful? Are all contracts made,
Judgments rendered, orders for tine
expenditure Of county funds and
levies Of taxes to be held as void, I'M
less by happy chance a second error
has restored the successor One mis-
take would invalidate all subsequent
sessions, the second error. would cor
rect the evil, but the third would re-
produce 1t, and 30 the validity of any
act of this important body would be
determined, not by any known or
certain standard, but by discovering
whether Its precedent errors were Of
an odd or even number. In Jones va.
Burford 20 Miss 104 It was decided
that a special meeting of the board Of
police held without the president Of
the board having first given the ten
days notice prescribed by the statute.
was void.
So also, as to a session held vt
time or place not authorized Ivy law.
Gamble VS. Witty So Miss. 20; john
son vs.. Flutch 81 Miss. 70.
But this Is distingulshable from all
these, In this, that IN these the act
to be done, on the time and place al
which the sessions were to be held
were definite and fixed by the law.
There was no uncertainty, no room
for doubt, no Investigation OF past
transactions.
II the net OF 1876 10 peremptory, the
legality of any session Is not determin-
able by anything short of an examine
ton of the history Of every precedent
session since the adoption of the law;
the body Of to-day II It should attempt |
to satisfy itself Of the legality of any
term proposed to be held. would have |
IN go into an enquiry touching not |
only their own past acts but those of
their predecessors, and Of the prede-
ces-ors of their predecessors. A con-
.truction producing o result We mis-
,hievons cannot be adopted the act
must be held TO be directory, and
though binding upon the members Of
The board, rendering them Liable to
for Its wilIful disregard as
not making void the sessions Of the
BOARD, though they are not held In con-
ormity with Its requirements.
The failure Of the collector to
make and file with the clerk of
he chancery court separate lists
4 the land sold to the State
md to individuals, on or before the
lrst Monday Of April succeeding the
ale, rs directed by section 40 Of the
ct of.lS7S, does notat all affect the title
Z the purchaser. BY section s, of ar
icle IL of the constitution, it Is de-
Jared that the courts shall apply the
anne liberal principles In favor of
uch titles {tax tiiles} ssas In sales by
But for the constitution
! provision, the title Of purchaser at
sale for taxes would depend upon
trict compliance by the officer with
4 the statutory requirements, but +!
18th as, II the power to sell existed,
o mere irregularity In Its exercise
III avoid the sale. City Of Matches
Minor 10, =. q II, 255, virden vs..
overs, IS, Miss. !.
These vie We render unnecessary the
'nsiderztion Of the Curative act Of
81 The decree Is reversed and cause J
manded for . decree In accordance
18th this decision. "
BISHOP Bros. \