Opinion ID: 1918706
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: whether the statutory procedure followed in this case violates due process regarding payment of just compensation and by depriving landowners of their right to a trial by jury.

Text: ¶ 15. Appellants also contend that § 51-29-39 is unconstitutional, because it violates their right to a trial by jury and Section 17 of our Constitution regarding payment of just compensation. They maintain that the District was allowed to take their property without first paying monetary damages directly to them. The chancery court granted an interlocutory decree allowing the district to acquire the easements and pay the amount of compensation according to the District's appraisal into the clerk of the court. Both of these contentions are without merit. ¶ 16. The constitutionality of allowing the chancery court to try the case without a jury trial has been upheld in Riverside Drainage Dist. v. Buckner, 108 Miss. 427, 66 So. 784 (1914). Furthermore, this Court stated long ago in Carradine v. Estate of Carradine, 58 Miss. 286, 293 (1880), [T]he granting of a jury trial, in the Chancery Court, where no statute prescribes one, is always discretionary with the chancellor, as has several times heretofore been announced by this court. See also Tillotson v. Anders, 551 So.2d 212, 214 n. 2 (Miss.1989) (explaining that Section 31 [of article 3 of the Mississippi Constitution] is of no effect in chancery.) ¶ 17. Regarding appellants' contention that it is unconstitutional to allow the District to pay the clerk of the chancery court the compensation instead of directly paying the landowners, we once again in Riverside Drainage District upheld the constitutionality of this procedure. In addition, Miss.Code Ann. § 11-27-33 specifically excludes cases covered under § 51-29-39 from application under the provisions in chapter 27 on eminent domain. Appellants' arguments on this issue are without merit.