Title: City of Jackson v. MISS. STATE BLDG. COM'N
Citation: 350 So. 2d 63
Docket Number: 50252
State: Mississippi
Issuer: Mississippi Supreme Court
Date: September 28, 1977

350 So. 2d 63 (1977) CITY OF JACKSON, Mississippi v. MISSISSIPPI STATE BUILDING COMMISSION and Frank J. Rooney, Inc. No. 50252. Supreme Court of Mississippi. September 28, 1977. John E. Stone, W.T. Neely, Jackson, for appellant. A.F. Summer, Atty. Gen., by P.L. Douglas, First Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee. Before PATTERSON, SUGG and WALKER, JJ. SUGG, Justice, for the Court: This appeal is from a final decree of the Chancery Court of the First Judicial District of Hinds Court which (1) enjoined the City of Jackson from requiring the State Building Commission or its contractor, Frank J. Rooney, Inc., to obtain a building permit from the City and to pay a permit fee for construction of a building by Rooney for the Commission, and (2) allowed the Commission to recover $13,454 paid into the registry of the court by it. The Commission filed a bill of complaint and alleged that the City demanded that its contractor, Rooney, obtain a building permit *64 and pay a building permit fee of $13,454; that it withheld payment of $13,454 to Rooney but tendered that amount into the registry of the chancery court. The Commission further alleged that it is an agency of the state created pursuant to section 31-11-1 et seq., Mississippi Code Annotated (1972) and was authorized to construct a building for the school of dentistry for the University of Mississippi Medical Center in the City of Jackson.[1] The Commission prayed that the City be enjoined from requiring its contractor to obtain a building permit for the construction of its building and pay a fee therefor. The City answered and admitted that the Commission was authorized to construct the building; that the defendant Rooney was awarded a contract to construct the building; and, that it had sought to require Rooney to obtain a building permit for the construction and pay a fee of $13,454 for the issuance of the permit. The City made its answer a cross-bill and alleged that it adopted a building code as authorized by section 21-19-5 Mississippi Code Annotated (1972). The City further alleged that the purpose of the building code was: The City further alleged that its building code requires every contractor proposing to erect or construct a building within its jurisdiction, (1) to make application to the Director of its Building and Permit Department for the issuance of a separate building permit for each structure, (2) to submit copies of the plans and specifications for the proposed work, (3) to obtain the department's approval thereof, and (4) to pay a prescribed fee before commencing construction. It alleged that Rooney began construction in violation of the provisions of the building code and prayed that it be awarded $13,454 for the permit fee. In its final decree the court issued an injunction enjoining the City from enforcing its building code against the State and ordered the clerk to refund to the Commission the $13,454 paid into the registry of the court by it. The issue in this case is: Does the building code of a municipality requiring a building permit and prescribing a fee for the building permit apply to buildings to be erected for the State by the State Building Commission? It is well settled by our decisions that statutes in derogation of sovereignty should be strictly construed in favor of the State so that its sovereignty may be upheld, and not narrowed or destroyed except by specific provisions. In Coleman v. Whipple, 191 Miss. 287, 2 So. 2d 566 (1941) this Court stated: We held in Gulf &amp; S.I.R. Co. v. Laurel Oil &amp; Fertilizer Co., 172 Miss. 630, 158 So. 778 (1935) the following: In Potter v. Fidelity &amp; Deposit Co., 101 Miss. 823, 58 So. 713 (1911) we said: The City adopted a building code pursuant to the authority granted by section 21-19-25 Mississippi Code Annotated (1972) which reads in part as follows: The language of section 21-19-25 does not expressly, or by implication, subject buildings erected by the State to building codes enacted pursuant thereto, neither does it give municipal corporations the power to require the State to obtain and pay a fee for a building permit. To the contrary section 31-11-3 Mississippi Code Annotated (1972) expressly grants the State Building Commission authority to erect state buildings, make inspections, prepare plans and specifications, and supervise the erection of state buildings. It is not reasonable to assume that the legislature, by enacting section 21-19-25, intended to diminish the authority of the Commission contained in section 31-11-3 and give municipalities the power to narrow or destroy the state's sovereignty with respect to its own buildings. Section 31-11-3 reads in part as follows: The foregoing statute delegates plenary power to the Commission to construct state buildings. Such grant of specific power denies contrary power. If the legislature had intended the Commission or its contractors to submit plans and specifications for the construction of buildings and pay fees to municipalities for building permits, then such requirement would have been expressly stated therein. The building code of the City must therefore yield to the sovereignty of the State. Our holding on this question is in accord with authority in other jurisdictions. City of Milwaukee v. McGregor, 140 Wis. 35, 121 N.W. 642 (1909) and Paulus v. City of St. Louis, Mo. App., 446 S.W.2d 144 (1969) decided the identical issues present in our case. The issue before the Supreme Court of Wisconsin in City of Milwaukee v. McGregor was whether the provisions of the charter of the City of Milwaukee and ordinances regulating the construction of buildings in Wisconsin applied to a public school building to be erected for the state by virtue of special legislative authority. The Supreme Court of Wisconsin stated: One of the issues in Paulus, supra, was whether the City of St. Louis could collect a building permit fee from a contractor who was constructing a building for the State of Missouri. The Court stated: AFFIRMED. PATTERSON, C.J., INZER and SMITH, P. JJ., and ROBERTSON, WALKER, BROOM, LEE and BOWLING, JJ., concur. [1] Miss.Gen.Laws Ch. 388 (1973) directed and authorized the board of trustees of state institutions of higher learning to establish a school of dentistry at Mississippi Medical Center in Jackson and directed and authorized the State Building Commission to provide suitable state owned land or land acquired by gift and buildings to house the school of dentistry. Miss.Gen.Laws Ch. 266 § 7(s) (1974) appropriated $8,313,233 for construction of dental school.