Title: Williams v. Stevens
Citation: 390 So. 2d 1012
Docket Number: 51684
State: Mississippi
Issuer: Mississippi Supreme Court
Date: December 10, 1980

390 So. 2d 1012 (1980) Peyton W. WILLIAMS, Jr., et al., v. Boswell STEVENS et al. No. 51684. Supreme Court of Mississippi. December 10, 1980. *1013 John E. Hughes, III, Wells, Wells, Marble &amp; Hurst, Jackson, for appellant. M.M. Roberts, Hattiesburg, A.F. Summer, Atty. Gen. by Ed Davis Noble, Jr., Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee. En banc. BROOM, Justice, for the Court: La Bauve Trustee voting rights relative to membership on the Board of Trustees (the Board) of State Institutions of Higher Learning under Section 213-A of the Mississippi Constitution of 1890 highlight this case. Complainants (appellants) are: Peyton Williams, Jr. and Jane Koelz, faculty and staff employees of Mississippi State University, and Katherine J. Mosley, a staff employee of Jackson State University. Named as defendants were Boswell Stevens, Dr. Verner S. Holmes, Dr. R.C. Cook, William M. Shoemaker, Sr., Travis E. Parker, Bobby L. Chain, Mrs. Miriam Q. Simmons, Dr. Robert Walker Harrison, Charles C. Jacobs, Jr., Dr. John R. Lovelace, Mrs. Betty A. Williams, Neal Denton Rogers and Robert L. Shemwell, Jr., the membership of the Board of Trustees of State Institutions of Higher Learning when suit was commenced, and Dr. E.E. Thrash, Executive Secretary of the Board.[1] Originally filed in the Chancery Court of Noxubee County, suit was transferred to the Chancery Court of the First Judicial District of Hinds County. The lower court sustained appellees' (defendants) general demurrer and the complainants appeal here. The controversy resulting in the litigation before us arose from action taken April 28, 1977, when the Board considered a motion By a 7 to 6 vote, the La Bauve Trustee voting affirmatively, this motion was approved by the Board. The appellants correctly point out that except for the La Bauve Trustee vote, the motion would have failed on a tie vote. Argument of the appellants is that the La Bauve Trustee was not entitled to vote on the motion because it did not exclusively pertain to the University of Mississippi. Appellants (complainants) aver in their bill that they "individually have been damaged monetarily and in their inability to fulfill the terms and conditions of their contract." Their action sought a permanent injunction precluding In making his ruling, the chancellor stated: Along with their answer and demurrer the appellees filed as separate defenses: (1) a plea contending that the appellants lacked "standing to bring this suit;" and (2) a plea in bar contending that no appeal had been taken "from the action of said Board" in the proper manner. Along with and as a part of their pleas was their request that the pleas "be heard prior to a hearing on the merits... ." Nevertheless, without addressing or ruling on the separate defenses, the chancellor sustained the demurrer and stated: Left unresolved were the issues of the complainants' "standing" and the "plea in bar." Both these issues should be decided at an evidentiary hearing before reaching other issues. True it is that the parties proceeded to trial on demurrer without pressing for a resolution of the "standing" issue. However, our view is that the issue of "standing" is a jurisdictional question which can and should be raised by us on our own motion-this is especially true where, as here, a constitutional interpretation is sought. To conclude otherwise would permit the "standing" issue to be resolved with the accompanying possibility that it might be determined adversely to the complainants, thereby leaving this Court in the awkward posture of having interpreted the constitution for complainants who had no legal right to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court. Established law is that constitutional issues are not reached if cases can be resolved upon other bases and surely this includes the right to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court. This is in accord with the following statement of Justice Frankfurter excerpted from his concurring opinion in Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrath, 341 U.S. 123, 71 S. Ct. 624, 95 L. Ed. 817 (1951): And see Orr v. Orr, 440 U.S. 268, 99 S. Ct. 1102, 59 L. Ed. 2d 306 (1979): We stated in Hancock County v. State Highway Commission, 188 Miss. 158, 193 So. 808 (1940): *1015 The threshold issue of standing to sue and the plea in bar should be resolved by remand to the trial court before we reach the constitutional issue. Accordingly we remand for the trial court to resolve the issues of (1) standing, and (2) the plea in bar, stated above. If these issues are resolved favorably to the appellants, the court should hear proof on the bill and answer. The case should not be decided on a general demurrer because the case involves close questions of constitutional interpretation. This accords with our long standing rule stated in Griffith's Mississippi Chancery Practice, § 310, 2d Ed. (1950), as follows: The evidentiary hearing should address the creation and history of the La Bauve Trust, the legislative and constitutional history of the La Bauve Trustee, the voting rights accorded the La Bauve Trustee, and any other matters relevant to the issues so this Court will have a complete record in the event of another appeal. REMANDED FOR FURTHER ACTION BY THE LOWER COURT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS OPINION. PATTERSON, C.J., SMITH and ROBERTSON, P. JJ., and SUGG, WALKER, LEE, BOWLING and COFER, JJ., concur. [1] Dr. Cook and Mr. Shemwell are deceased. Tommy Munro succeeded Dr. Cook; Betty A. Shemwell succeeded Mr. Shemwell.