Opinion ID: 1787114
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: whether the chancellor erred in transferring the case to the circuit court on his own motion.

Text: ¶ 27. In Benedict v. City of Hattiesburg, 693 So.2d 377, 378 (Miss.1997), the plaintiff filed a complaint against the City of Hattiesburg in chancery court, alleging that an election had been conducted without legal authority. The City of Hattiesburg filed a motion to dismiss for, among other things, lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Id. at 378. The chancellor held that the chancery court lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the case. After clarifying that Miss.Code Ann. § 11-51-75 [3] afforded complainants such as Benedict a plain, adequate, speedy, and complete remedy for a judicial determination of his right, Id. at 381 (citing Moore v. Sanders, 558 So.2d 1383 (Miss.1990)), and that the chancery court did indeed lack subject matter jurisdiction, the Court nonetheless reversed the lower court for failure to transfer to the case to circuit court. The Court cited Article 6, § 162 of the Mississippi Constitution, which reads as follows: All cases that may be brought in chancery court whereof the circuit court has exclusive jurisdiction shall be transferred to the circuit court. Miss. Const. art. 6, § 162 (1890). The Court reiterated its prior holding in Moore v. Mississippi Hosp. & Med. Serv., 317 So.2d 919 (Miss.1975), that a chancellor's failure to transfer when a demurrer was requested on the basis of lack of subject matter jurisdiction amounts to reversible error. Id. at 381. ¶ 28. In the case sub judice, the University filed a motion in the chancery court to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Since the circuit court had exclusive jurisdiction over Smith's claims, there is no doubt that the chancellor acted properly in transferring the case to the circuit court pursuant to the Mississippi Constitution and the case law of Mississippi.