Case Name: Frances WARNER v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF the JACKSON MUNICIPAL SEPARATE SCHOOL DISTRICT
Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Mississippi
Decision Date: 1978-05-31
Citations: 359 So. 2d 345
Docket Number: No. 50237
Parties: Frances WARNER v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF the JACKSON MUNICIPAL SEPARATE SCHOOL DISTRICT.
Judges: PATTERSON, C. J., SMITH and ROBERTSON, P. JJ., and WALKER, BROOM and LEE, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 359
Pages: 345–350

Head Matter:
Frances WARNER v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF the JACKSON MUNICIPAL SEPARATE SCHOOL DISTRICT.
No. 50237.
Supreme Court of Mississippi.
May 31, 1978.
Cupit & Maxey, Danny E. Cupit, Jackson, for appellant.
Brunini, Grantham, Grower & Hewes, Richard W. Dortch, W. David Watkins, Jackson, for appellee.

Opinion:
SUGG, Justice,
for the Court:
This appeal is from a decree of the Chancery Court of the First Judicial District of Hinds County affirming the action of the Board of Trustees of the Jackson Municipal Separate School District approving the recommendation of the Principal of the Marshall Elementary School that Mrs. Warner not be reemployed as a teacher for the 1976-77 school year. The primary question for decision is whether Mrs. Warner was given timely notice of her principal's recommendation not to reemploy her under the Public School Fair Dismissal Act. Miss.Gen.Laws Ch. 577 (1974).
Mrs. Warner's principal determined that he would not recommend her for reemployment as a teacher for the ensuing school year in the latter part of February, 1976. The superintendent notified Mrs. Warner of the decision by letter dated March 22, 1976 which was received by Mrs. Warner on March 25,1976. Mrs. Warner contends that the notice should have been sent to her within seven days of the date the principal determined not to recommend her for reemployment. The pertinent parts of Chapter 577 are as follows:
Section 3. Persons Entitled to Notice. Any employee of a school district who has been employed by such district during the entirety of the preceding school year, shall be given notice within seven (7) days of the decision that he not be offered a contract for reemployment for the succeeding school term when:
(c) by April 1 the principal does not recommend to the superintendent the reemployment of a teacher, or by May 1 the principal does recommend the reemployment of a teacher and the superintendent does not approve the recommendation for the teacher's reemployment, or by May 1 the principal and superintendent both recommend the reemployment of a teacher and the board of trustees of the district declines the recommendation.
Section 4. Notice. Except in the case of nonreemployment of the superintendent, notice shall be tendered by the superintendent to any employee within seven (7) days of the date when the recommendation to reemploy would have been made under the terms of Section 37-9-15 and 37-9-17 and amendments thereto.
Section 37-9-17 Mississippi Code Annotated (1972) provides in part as follows:
On or before April 1st of each year, the principal of each school shall recommend to the superintendent of the school district the teachers to be employed for the school involved except those teachers who have been previously employed and who have a contract valid for the ensuing scholastic year.
The provisions of the Public School Fair Dismissal Act [Miss.Gen.Laws Ch. 577 (1974)] are conflicting because the first paragraph of Section 3 provides that notice shall be given within seven days of the decision that a teacher not be offered a contract for reemployment for the succeeding school term. On the other hand, Section 4 provides that notice shall be given by the superintendent within seven days of the date when the recommendation to reemploy would have been made under the terms of section 37-9-17 Mississippi Code Annotated (1972) which is April 1st. Section 3 of the Act does not designate the person who shall give the notice, while Section 4 provides that the superintendent shall give the notice when a teacher is involved.
We are thus faced with the problem of construing conflicting provisions in the same statute. The rule for construing conflicting provisions in the same statute was stated in Coker v. Wilkinson, 142 Miss. 1, 106 So. 886 (1926) as follows:
[W]here there are two conflicting provisions in the same statute, the last expression of the Legislature must prevail over the former. Undoubtedly that principle of statutory construction is sound. (142 Miss. at 16, 106 So. at 887).
Coker was cited with approval in Mississippi State Highway Commission v. Rives, 271 So.2d 725 (Miss.1972) (Petition for Rehearing denied 1973). However, the rule does not apply in all cases. In Roseberry v. Norsworthy, 135 Miss. 845, 100 So. 514 (1924) we stated:
The rule invoked by the appellant that, as between conflicting sections of the same act, the last in order of arrangement will control has no application, where the intention and purpose of the whole act is clear and unmistakable, and to accept the literal wording of the latter provision would destroy a legislative policy, nullify the main provisions of the act, and entirely defeat the manifest intention and purpose of the lawmakers. (135 Miss. at 860, 100 So. at 517).
We hold the rule applies in this case and that Section 4 of the Public School Fair Dismissal Act controls over Section 3. Notice that a teacher will not be offered a contract for reemployment for the succeed ing school term must be given by the superintendent within seven days after April 1st, which is April 8. This construction does not nullify the primary purpose of the Act which is to give an employee notice that he will not be reemployed for the ensuing year.
There are three additional reasons supporting this construction of the statute:
(1) Section 4 fixes a definite and certain date for notice, whereas if we should hold that Section 3 is controlling, the date of notice would not be definite and certain and would depend upon the time a principal originally determined not to reemploy a teacher. When two dates are possible in a statute requiring notice, one being definite and certain and the other being indefinite and uncertain, the definite date should be chosen so that the notice requirements will apply consistently to all persons entitled to notice.
(2) It is possible that a principal might initially determine not to recommend a teacher for reemployment, but by April 1st change his mind and recommend that such teacher be reemployed. In such case if Section 3 controlled notice would have been given to a teacher of nonreemployment, when in fact the determination was not final.
(3) The Court may look to later acts of the legislature to ascertain the legislative intent and in arriving at the correct meaning of a statute. Crosby v. Barr, 198 So.2d 571 (Miss.1967). Our construction reflects the legislative intent because the notice provision of the Public School Fair Dismissal Act was amended by Miss.Gen.Laws Ch. 489 (1977) [Section 37-9-105 Mississippi Code Annotated (1977 Supp.)] to delete Section 3 of the original Act leaving the notice provisions as follows:
In the event that a determination is made by a school district not to offer an employee a renewal contract for a successive year, written notice of nonrenewal shall be given within seven (7) days of the date when the recommendation to reemploy would have been made under the provisions of sections 37-9-15 and 37-9-17, and amendments thereto, but in any event no later than the following:
(c) If the employee is a teacher or other professional educator, the school district shall give notice of nonreemployment on or before April 8.
For the foregoing reasons we are of the opinion that notice was given within the time required by the Public School Fair Dismissal Act.
The other assignments of error have been considered and we find they do not merit discussion.
AFFIRMED.
PATTERSON, C. J., SMITH and ROBERTSON, P. JJ., and WALKER, BROOM and LEE, JJ., concur.
BOWLING and COFER, JJ., dissent.