Title: Thompson v. Anding
Citation: 370 So. 2d 1335
Docket Number: 51181
State: Mississippi
Issuer: Mississippi Supreme Court
Date: May 9, 1979

370 So. 2d 1335 (1979) James S. THOMPSON, Mayor of City of McComb, et al. v. James J. ANDING et al. No. 51181. Supreme Court of Mississippi. May 9, 1979. Watkins &amp; Eager, James L. Carroll, Jackson, Wiltshire &amp; Walman, McComb, for appellants. Richard E. Stratton, III, Brookhaven, Mounger &amp; Mounger, Tylertown, for appellees. Before SMITH, SUGG and COFER, JJ. SMITH, Presiding Justice, for the Court: This case involves an appeal by John S. Thompson, Mayor of the City of McComb, Mississippi, Herbert Wilmesherr, Baker Gunter, Jewell D. Conerly, Harvey Vest, Clyde Simmons and Cliff L. White, Selectmen and Constituting the Board of Selectmen of the City of McComb City, Mississippi, and Charles B. Campbell, Tax Collector for the City of McComb City, Mississippi, from a decree of the Chancery Court of Pike County overruling their general demurrer to an original bill filed by James J. Anding, W.W. Williamson, John H. Boyd, F.E. McKinley, George S. Carruth and E.D. Bearden, as citizens of Pike County who reside in "and/or" own real property within the McComb Municipal Separate School District but outside the corporate limits of McComb City, and asserting that complainants brought the suit as representatives of a class consisting of themselves and all others similarly situated, said decree also overruling a motion by the defendants to dismiss the bill as not stating a case meeting the essential requirements of a class action. The bill charged that the lands of the so-called "class" were assessed at a value substantially higher than lands of taxpayers of Pike County generally and lands in other Pike County school districts and in school *1336 districts in other counties and were not assessed in proportion to their value. Demand was made for refund of taxes and a requirement that the lands be properly assessed. It is apparent from the bill, and confirmed by the argument on appeal, that claimants' suit is based upon the proposition that Mississippi Code Annotated section 21-33-11 (1972) provides the exclusive method for the assessment for school taxes of lands comprising that part of a municipal separate school district which lies outside municipal boundaries, and that the assessments appearing on the county assessment rolls are conclusive upon the municipal taxing authorities. The section reads as follows: If it can be said that there are certain ambiguities in Mississippi Code Annotated section 21-33-11 (1972) standing alone, when considered with other statutes dealing with the assessment of property, it becomes manifest that, insofar as the assessment of separate school district property lying outside a municipality, it must be construed as: (1) Relating exclusively to the assessment of railroad property by the "State Railroad Assessors", including that in a municipality or in the added territory of a separate school district; (2) or providing a temporary expedient or alternative method for assessing property added to a municipal separate school district which lies outside a municipality. While not a controlling authority, of course, Ross, in Municipal Taxation in Mississippi, 29 M.L.J. 41 (1957), the author states: Mississippi Code Annotated section 21-33-21 (1972) provides: And Mississippi Code Annotated section 37-7-615 requires that: This Court has held that statutes relating to the same subject matter, although appearing to be in conflict, should, so far as reasonably possible, be harmonized with each other so as to give force and effect to each. McCullen v. State, 217 Miss. 256, 63 So. 2d 856 (1953), Aikerson v. State, 274 So. 2d 124 (Miss. 1973). This Court has held consistently that when applying section 112 of the Mississippi Constitution, in considering the validity of assessments in a taxing district, such assessments are to be compared with other property assessments within the taxing district as a whole and not with assessments in other taxing districts. In Xerox Corporation v. City of Jackson, 328 So. 2d 330 (Miss. 1976), the rule was followed, the Court stating: It is apparent that an adoption of the rule for which appellees contend, that is, that property in the territory added to the municipal separate school district and lying outside the municipality, should be assessed differently than property lying within the municipality, would result in the very lack of uniformity and equality which the bill purports to seek and would be constitutionally impermissible. The general demurrer to the bill should have been sustained. Likewise, the motion to dismiss the suit as not presenting the essential prerequisites of a class action in Mississippi, should have been sustained. In Barrett v. Coullet, 263 So. 2d 764 (Miss. 1972), this Court said: The language of the Court in Barrett finds some analogy here: Obviously, Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure dealing with class actions, has no application in this case. Moreover, the class action, like any other suit in equity, must present a matter for equity cognizance. Tribette v. Illinois Central Railroad, 70 Miss. 182, 12 So. 32 (1892). In Barrett v. Coullet, supra, this Court stated that in order to maintain a so-called class action that there must be: As early as Anderson v. Ingersoll, 62 Miss. 73 (1884) this Court dealt with a case involving an alleged excessive assessment of land. The Court stated: In citing Anderson, appellees point out that section 504, referred to above, is the predecessor of present section 11-51-77. This Court has continued to hold that the remedy of a taxpayer under circumstances such as those disclosed by the bill of complaint in this case, is by exercising the statutory right of appeal. In Yazoo Delta Investment Company v. Suddoth, 70 Miss. 416, 12 So. 246 (1893), the Court said: In Alexander v. Mayor And Board of Aldermen of City of Natchez, et al., 219 Miss. 78, 68 So. 2d 434 (1953), certain taxpayers brought suit in the Chancery Court of Adams County against the Mayor and Board of Aldermen of the City of Natchez, challenging the validity of a contract between the City and a firm of expert property appraisers. The bill alleged "that the valuations made by the city assessor under this contract are in fact discriminatory and not equal and uniform, and are arbitrary in amounts." In disposing of the case this Court said: The claims of the individuals said to comprise the "class" in each case relate to an individually owned parcel of real estate and are separate and distinct, each from the other. The remedy of each of these persons, as landowners, was by appeal under the provisions of section 21-33-39 and section 11-51-77, supra. This Court has continued to recognize the validity of this provision and that the statutory method of appeal provides each of the individuals concerned with a separate, plain and adequate remedy at law. That being so, a court of equity is without jurisdiction. Under ordinary circumstances, a decree sustaining the demurrer would be entered *1339 here, with a remand to afford complainants a reasonable time to amend. However, in view of our conclusion that (1) the bill does not state a case for a class action, and (2) complainants had a plain, adequate remedy at law and thus equity was without jurisdiction, the motion to dismiss the bill should have been sustained. A decree, therefore, is entered here finally dismissing the bill. REVERSED AND DECREE HERE DISMISSING BILL. PATTERSON, C.J., ROBERTSON, P.J., and SUGG, WALKER, BROOM, LEE, BOWLING and COFER, JJ., concur. [5] Miss. Code Ann. §§ 3742-01 to -46 (1942). [6] Miss. Code Ann. §§ 3742-04, -05 (1942). [7] Miss. Code Ann. §§ 9352-65, -66 (1942).