Case Name: W. C. Swoope v. W. H. Moody
Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Mississippi
Decision Date: 1895-10
Citations: 73 Miss. 82
Docket Number: 
Parties: W. C. Swoope v. W. H. Moody.
Judges: 
Reporter: Mississippi Reports
Volume: 73
Pages: 82–84

Head Matter:
W. C. Swoope v. W. H. Moody.
County Surveyor. Subdivided plantation. Map showing each plot. Surveyor’s fees. Code 1880, § 457, construed,.
Where a county surveyor has surveyed a plantation and divided it into more than sixty small tracts, making a separate plot of each tract, his charge for making a map of the plantation containing a plot of each tract is not limited to |2.50 by § 457, code of 1880, relative to the fees of county surveyors, which allows that sum for making a plot of each survey.
From the circuit court of DeSoto county.
Hon. Eugene Johnson, Judge.
W. C. Swoope employed W. H. Moody, county surveyor, to survey his plantation and divide the cleared land thereof into separate tracts for convenience in renting it. Moody did the work of surveying the plantation, and divided it into more than sixty small tracts or blocks, and for this part of his work was paid the fees allowed by law. He left without making any plots, he and Swoope being unable to agree about the price to be paid therefor, but gave to Swoope a pencil memorandum of the number of acres in each tract, and the names of the tenants on the same. Swoope testified that Moody promised to furnish the plots, but Moody denied having done so. The plantation was surveyed in April, 1890, and in January and February, 1891, Swoope wrote to Moody telling him that he was renting out his place in small lots, and needed a map of the place, and urging him to send one to him as soon as possible. Moody made a large map, showing a plot of each tract or subdivision, and sent it to Swoope by express, along with a smaller map and his bill for $75, the price of the same, which, Moody testified, was no more than they were worth. Swoope would not take the maps, and refused to pay for them. Moody brought suit for $75 and recovered judgment, the cause being tried by the court without a jury. Swoope thereupon prosecuted this appeal. Section 457, code of 1880, the statute relied upon by defendant as fixing the price of the map at $2.50, is as follows: “(a) For each day’s attendance in making a survey, $5.00; (b) for a plot thereof and statement of contents and certificate of survey, $2.50; (c) for each additional plot,'with notes and references and certificate of survey, $1.50,” etc.
St. John Waddell, for the appellant.
Under §457, code of 1880, county surveyors were not allowed to charge more than $2.50 for a plot, statement of contents and certificate of each survey made by them, and they were required to furnish plots at that price. All that Moody could therefore charge for the plot or map in question was $2\ 50. He did not make it under Swoope’s direction, and it was much larger than was necessary.
117 II. Moody, pro se.
Section 457, code 1880, in force at the time of the transaction in controversy, evidently has no application to a case where over sixty distinct plots are made by the surveyor. The law would hardly allow him $5.00 per day for field work, and at the same time compel him to furnish for $2.50 maps that it would take him ten days to make. The map was ordered by Swoope nearly a year after the field work was done.

Opinion:
Whitfield, J.,
delivered the opinion of the court.
The appellee surveyed and plotted over sixty separate and distinct tracts. He did not merely run out the boundaries around a plantation. The purpose of the surveying and plotting was to divide up a large plantation into separate small tracts, for convenience in renting to tenants who wanted only small tracts; and the lines were run around each of these sixty and odd tracts, and there were over sixty plots of survey made, thus showing each tract separately.
If reference were had alone to § 157 of the code of 1880, which governs in this case, it would be difficult to see clearly what is meant, but, on tracing the legislation from which that section is condensed (see code 1857, p. 131, art. 172; Hutch. Code, p. 166), it is plain that the $2.50 allowed for making a plot of the survey does not constitute the compensation in a case like this, where over sixty separate plots have been made. The $1.50 allowed by the code of 1857, and by the act of December 7, 1811, where the territory was needing constant surveys over lands of large extent and diverse character as to situation, etc., was a sum allowed for an additional copy of a plot when such copy contained not more than three plots. When there were more, fifty cents were to be allowed for every additional plot. The $1.50 allowed in code 1880, §157, for ' each additional plot, " is to be interpreted in its allowance in the light of the legislation from which it has been condensed. The language in Hutch. Code, p. 166, is, "For every single plot, ' ' etc., and provision is made for proper allowance when town lots have been surveyed. The action of the learned trial judge was in accord with these views, and the judgment is
Affirmed.