Case Name: CITY OF CLARKSDALE, Mississippi v. MISSISSIPPI POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY, a Corporation; Irving Trust Company, a Corporation; and J.A. Vaughan
Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Mississippi
Decision Date: 1990-02-07
Citations: 556 So. 2d 1056
Docket Number: No. 07-58670
Parties: CITY OF CLARKSDALE, Mississippi v. MISSISSIPPI POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY, a Corporation; Irving Trust Company, a Corporation; and J.A. Vaughan.
Judges: Before HAWKINS, P.J., and SULLIVAN and PITTMAN, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 556
Pages: 1056–1059

Head Matter:
CITY OF CLARKSDALE, Mississippi v. MISSISSIPPI POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY, a Corporation; Irving Trust Company, a Corporation; and J.A. Vaughan.
No. 07-58670.
Supreme Court of Mississippi.
Feb. 7, 1990.
David R. Hunt, Ross Hunt Spell & Ross, H. Hunter Twiford, III, Twiford & Webster, Clarksdale, for appellant.
James K. Child, Charles T. Ozier, John D. Price, Wise Carter Child & Caraway, Jackson, for appellee.
Before HAWKINS, P.J., and SULLIVAN and PITTMAN, JJ.

Opinion:
HAWKINS, Presiding Justice,
for the Court:
The City of Clarksdale has appealed the order of the special court of eminent domain of Coahoma County dismissing its petition to condemn facilities of the Mississippi Power & Light Company (MP & L). Finding no error, we affirm.
On March 5, 1987, the City, pursuant to the power of eminent domain granted it under Miss.Code Ann. § 77-3-17 (Supp.1986), filed a petition to condemn the electrical facilities of MP & L within the corporate limits, including the portion of the certificate of public convenience and necessity issued by the Mississippi Public Service Commission (PSC) to MP & L to serve the City.
Senate Bill No. 2840 passed the Senate on February 6, 1987, passed the House of Representatives on March 3, then was vetoed by the Governor on March 5, with the veto overridden by both Houses on March 17, 1987, thus on that date amending Miss. Code Ann. § 77-3-13, — 17, and —21 dealing with the regulation of public utilities.
The amended Miss.Code Ann. § 77-3-17 specifically provided that prior to a municipality exercising the power of eminent domain against a utility the certificate of public convenience and necessity held by the utility had to be cancelled by the PSC. The PSC had not acted on the utility's certificate of public convenience and necessity, and the special court of eminent domain dismissed the City's petition.
The trial judge held that because the City's right of eminent domain was a creation of statute, under well-settled law any amendment to a statute was treated as though it had been a part of the original statute.
We affirm. In Oliphant v. The Carthage Bank, 224 Miss. 386, 80 So.2d 63, 72 (1955), we held:
It is well-settled by the decisions of our Court, and in most every other jurisdiction, that when proceedings are in process under a statute and have not been completed, and have not reached the stage of final judgment, and a new act is passed, modifying the statute under which the proceedings were begun, the new statute becomes integrated into and a part of the old statute as fully as if written therein from the very time the old statute was enacted....
224 Miss. at 410, 80 So.2d at 72.
It is also the general rule that where a statute affects only the mode of procedure, and not the substantive rights of parties, it applies to pending actions. 77 A.L.R. 1346, and cases cited; 73 Am.Jur.2d Statutes, § 354; Johnson v. State, 371 So.2d 556 (D.2 Fla.App.1979). In Mladinich v. Kohn, 186 So.2d 481, 483 (Miss.1966), we stated:
Although some of the cases from other jurisdictions . hold that a remedial statute does not come within the general rule against retrospective operation, the Mississippi cases have declined to make that distinction, and we see no sound reason to overrule them.
Here, as opposed to the facts of Mladinich v. Kohn, however, we glean a positive Legislative intent for Miss.Code Ann. § 77-3-17 to apply to condemnation proceedings of this nature, whether pending or not. Especially is this true since the City's power to institute eminent domain proceedings is solely statutory.
The judgment of dismissal of the special court of eminent domain is accordingly affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
ROY NOBLE LEE, C.J., and PRATHER, ROBERTSON, ANDERSON, PITTMAN and BLASS, JJ., concur.
DAN M. LEE, P.J., and SULLIVAN, J., dissent.