Opinion ID: 1849100
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the mississippi constitution requires a quorum of five judges.

Text: Section 145B of the Mississippi Constitution 1890 is in the following language: The Supreme Court shall consist of nine judges, that is to say, of three judges in addition to the six provided for by section 145A of this Constitution, any five of whom when convened shall constitute a quorum. The additional judges herein provided for shall be selected one for and from each of the supreme court districts in the manner provided by section 145A of this Constitution or any amendment thereto. Their terms of office shall be as provided by section 149 of this Constitution or any amendment thereto. What is a Quorum of Five Judges? A quorum of course means a majority. 2 Bouvier's Law Dictionary 812 (7th ed. 1897), defines a quorum as follows: QUORUM. Used substantively, quorum signifies the number of persons belonging to a legislative assembly, a corporation, society, or other body, required to transact business. A quorum is such a number of the officers or members of any body as is competent by law or constitution to transact business. 18 Col. 18. There is a difference between an act done by a definite number of persons, and one performed by an indefinite number; in the first case a majority is required to constitute a quorum, unless the law expressly directs that another number may make one; in the latter case any number who may be present may act, the majority of those present having, as in other cases, the right to act; 7 Cow. 402; 9 B. & C. 856; 34 Vt. 316; Beach, Pub.Corp. 485; 27 Miss. 517. We are also taught by many cases set out in 35A Words and Phrases, Quorum pp. 629-30, 633 (1963), that the word quorum means a majority: The word `quorum,' in a general sense, means a majority of the whole body. Berlin v. Nominations, 22 Pa. Co. Ct.R., 615, 616. ... State v. Trustees of Wilkesville Tp., 20 Ohio St. 288, 293. ... Morton v. Talmadge, 144 S.E. 111, 166 Ga. 620. ... Herring v. City of Mexia, Tex., 290 S.W. 792, 794. ... Gumaer v. Cripple Creek Tunnel, Transp. & Min. Co., 90 P. 81, 84, 85, 40 Colo. 1, 122 Am.St.Rep. 1024, 13 Ann.Cas. 781.       Under Const. art. 6, §§ 5, 8, Rev.St. 1908, § 1412, a majority of the members of the Supreme Court constitute the court en banc, and a majority of the court as thus constituted may decide a case, three judges at least concurring; a `quorum,' as used in the statute, meaning a majority of the entire body. Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. People, 190 P. 513, 517, 68 Colo. 487. Our own Court has pointed out that a quorum meant a majority of the Court. In the case of Carney v. Anderson, 214 Miss. 504, 59 So.2d 262 (1952), cert. denied, 344 U.S. 860, 73 S.Ct. 101, 97 L.Ed. 667 (1952), the appellant insisted upon being heard en banc. He cited a Missouri case as his authority. This Court pointed out, however, that the Missouri Constitution required that court to sit en banc to decide federal questions. It was then noted that our Constitution does not so provide. Our Court then went on to explain our procedure as follows: We have no such provision in the Constitution of this State nor do we have such a rule in this Court. Section 145A of our Constitution, as recently amended, provides that any five of the nine members of the Court shall constitute a quorum. Since the adoption of that amendment we do not consider any cases in banc except in the event there is a disagreement among the five who originally heard the case and except in cases where a death sentence has been imposed and except in cases where we are confronted with overruling a prior decision and except in those cases which are considered by the panel of five judges to be of such importance that a consideration in banc is deemed advisable. Under our Constitution and rules the judgment heretofore entered is a final judgment. Hays Finance Co. v. Bailey, Miss., 56 So.2d 806. 214 Miss. at 518-19, 59 So.2d at 262. As early as 1935, this Court had before it an issue as to whether a divided court could decide a case, and the Court pointed out: The words, `the cause shall then be considered and adjudged by the full court or a quorum thereof,' as used in the Constitution, [Section 149A] have no bearing on the procedure by which the court functions, except to permit the court to act when some of the judges are absent, provided a quorum (i.e., a majority) thereof are [sic] present. Dean v. State, 173 Miss. 254, 312, 162 So. 155, 158 (1935). It was apparent to the Court at that time that a quorum meant a majority of the Court, and that a majority was necessary to transact business. In Shedd v. State, 203 Miss. 544, 33 So.2d 816 (1948), this Court again pointed out that a vote of the majority of the members of the Court was required to decide an issue. We said: Three of us are of the opinion that the declaration was not admissible under the circumstances, while three of us agree that it was admissible, and its admission was not error. Since it takes four of the justices to sustain an assignment of error that will reverse the judgment of the trial court, this particular assignment of error is overruled. 203 Miss. at 551, 33 So.2d at 818. Many years ago (1831) in the case of Arnett v. Bitsel, 1 Miss. (Walker) 496 (1831), where the law at that time required a habeas corpus suit to be heard by three associate justices of the county and only two were present, on appeal to this Court we held that all three judges were required. This was a trial court arrangement under the statute, but it seems to me that where the Constitution expressly states that five judges are required to act as a quorum, the absence of two judges violates the requirement of the Constitution equally, or more so, as would a statutory requirement.