Summary
In Broom v. Board of Sup'rs, 171 Miss. 586, 593, 594, 158 So. 344, 345, the principle involved was fully discussed and there it was said: "When a court of general jurisdiction has proceeded with a case, it will be presumed that the court has ascertained that it had jurisdiction to act, and no special adjudication thereof on the minutes of the court is required.
Summary of this case from Simpson County v. BurkettOpinion
No. 31525.
December 17, 1934.
1. COURTS.
Court has primary duty before proceeding in any case to see that it has jurisdiction both of subject-matter and of parties.
2. COURTS.
When court of general jurisdiction has proceeded with case, it will be presumed that court ascertained that it had jurisdiction, and no special adjudication thereof on minutes of court is required.
3. COURTS.
No presumption is indulged in favor of jurisdiction of tribunals of special and limited jurisdiction, but such tribunal must before proceeding determine whether it has jurisdiction and enter upon its minutes affirmative recitals to effect that tribunal has found that facts essential to exercise of jurisdiction exist.
4. SCHOOLS AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS.
Board of supervisors is tribunal of special and limited jurisdiction in matter of issuance of bonds of school district, and, before board is authorized to proceed with such bond issue, board must adjudicate jurisdictional facts, which adjudication can be evidenced only by its minutes (Laws 1922, chapter 235, section 6).
5. SCHOOLS AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS.
Jurisdictional facts which must be adjudicated by board of supervisors before it can proceed with issuance of bonds for school district are that petition has been presented to board for issuance of bonds fixing maximum amount thereof and signed by twenty per cent. of qualified electors of district, that purposes for which bonds are to be issued are authorized by law, and that bonds will not impose upon any property in district indebtedness for school purposes of more than ten per cent. of its assessed value (Laws 1932, chapter 235, section 6).
6. SCHOOLS AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS.
Board of supervisors, which failed to adjudicate jurisdictional fact that proposed bonds would not impose upon any of property in district indebtedness for school purposes of more than ten per cent. of assessed value of property and to enter such fact upon its minutes, had no jurisdiction to order election upon proposed bond issue, and hence curative order adjudicating jurisdictional fact after election was ineffectual to give board jurisdiction (Laws 1932, chapter 235, section 6).
7. SCHOOLS AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS.
Qualified elector of school district had right, before voting on proposed bond issue, to be officially informed that it would not exceed limitations prescribed by law, which information could be conveyed only by adjudication of board of supervisors entered on its minutes (Laws 1932, chapter 235, section 6).
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Jefferson Davis County.
Martin Berry, of New Hebron, for appellants.
The board of supervisors in this bond matter was acting as a court of special and limited jurisdiction and every jurisdictional fact must affirmatively appear of record on their minutes.
Boutwell v. Board of Supervisors, 128 Miss. 337, 91 So. 12; Adams v. Bank, 103 Miss. 744, 60 So. 770.
The power to subject property to taxation is stricti juris.
114 Miss. 537.
Procedure for authorizing bonds is to be strictly construed.
Johnson v. Yazoo Co., 113 Miss. 435, 74 So. 321.
A void judgment may be assailed anywhere.
93 Miss. 215.
The court below was in error in holding and deciding that the final order of the board of supervisors adjudicated the necessary jurisdictional facts as required under section 6, chapter 235, Laws of 1932.
Board of Supervisors v. Ottley, 146 Miss. 118, 109 So. 851; West et al. v. Mayor of Waynesboro, 152 Miss. 443, 119 So. 809; Gilbert et al. v. Scarborough et al., 159 Miss. 679, 131 So. 876; Lumber Co. v. Jefferson Davis County, 133 Miss. 229, 97 So. 545; Chapter 235, section 6, Laws of 1932; Johnson v. Yazoo Co., 113 Miss. 435, 74 So. 321; Boutwell v. Board of Supervisors, 128 Miss. 337, 91 So. 12; Board of Supervisors v. Clark, 163 Miss. 120, 140 So. 733.
The board went beyond the calls of the petition and their orders are void.
Supervisors v. Clark, 163 Miss. 120, 140 So. 733; Bryant v. Board of Supervisors, 133 Miss. 714, 98 So. 148; Borroum v. Purdy Road District, 131 Miss. 778, 95 So. 677; Board v. Weatherford, 114 Miss. 270; Insurance Co. v. Fire Ins. Co., 113 Miss. 545; Cuevas v. Cuevas, 145 Miss. 456, 110 So. 865; 3 C.J., pp. 177-8.
There was no description of the territory of the Carson consolidated school district anywhere in any of the proceedings.
Carter v. Board of Supervisors, 131 Miss. 127, 95 So. 306; Pearce v. Mantachie District, 134 Miss. 497, 99 So. 134; Monroe County v. Mingo, 127 Miss. 702, 90 So. 443; Board of Supervisors v. Ottley, 146 Miss. 118, 109 So. 851; Yellowly v. Beardsley, 76 Miss. 613.
The order calling for the election does not adjudicate the fact that twenty per cent of the qualified electors signing the petition were residents of the Carson school district at the time of the last election held in Jefferson Davis county and qualified to vote in the Carson district at that time.
Chapter 197, Laws of 1932; Section 5978, Code of 1930.
The statute requires three things on the back and only three: "Official ballot," the name of the election district or place for which the ballot is prepared and the date of the election.
Perkins v. Carraway, 59 Miss. 222; Keller v. Toulme, 7 So. 508; Oglesby v. Sigman, 58 Miss. 502; McKenzie v. Boykin, 111 Miss. 256, 71 So. 382; State ex rel. Rogers et al. v. Sweat, 152 So. 432.
The board did not comply with the statutory requirements under chapter 197, Laws of 1932.
Nowhere in the whole proceedings is there any adjudication that this bond issue was necessary and proper and would serve a public benefit.
Stone v. Consolidated School District, 161 Miss. 537, 137 So. 332.
Livingston Milloy, of Prentiss, for appellee.
The adjudication of the board states definitely and certainly that the bonds are issued under and pursuant to all laws governing school bond issues and the finding of the board is that the ten per cent limit placed by law will not be exceeded in any particular or on any property in the school district, and is therefore conclusive in favor of the validity of the bond issue. This is the interpretation placed on the order by the trial court below, and we submit that no error was committed by the court below in this interpretation of the order of the board and the law.
Rogers et al. v. Board of Supervisors of Union County, 114 Miss. 326, 75 So. 123; Board of Supervisors of Lowndes County v. Ottley et al., 146 Miss. 118, 112 So. 466.
In the case at bar the board of supervisors did make the proper adjudication of this jurisdictional fact.
It is manifest that the bonds were issued under section 5983 as amended by said chapter 197, and under all other amendatory and the laws applicable to school bond issues.
Where county bonds reciting that they were issued in conformity of the law and refer to the wrong statute, this will not render them void, as long as ample authority is found elsewhere under the statutes in force at the time of issuance which have been substantially complied with, but this rule does not apply where the official records show proceedings not in conformity with the act authorizing the issuance, and the recitals of the bonds themselves exclude the possibility that they were issued under such acts.
15 C.J., p. 623, sec. 335.
This court held in the case of Noxubee County v. Long, 106 So. 83, that the minutes of boards of supervisors reciting their orders and judgments, like those of justices of the peace, will be looked upon with indulgence.
Although they may be unskillfully drawn, if by a fair and reasonable interpretation their meaning can be ascertained, they will be sufficient to answer the requirements of law.
The ballot was prepared under chapter 197, Laws of 1932, and the statute was strictly followed in the writing of the ballot.
Section 311, Code of 1930.
The official ballot used in this election was sufficient in every particular and in full accordance with the statute.
Section 329, p. 618, 15 C.J.
Argued orally by Martin Berry, for appellant, and by W.H. Livingston, for appellee.
At the February, 1934, term of the board of supervisors of Jefferson Davis county, a petition was presented signed by more than twenty per centum of the qualified electors of the Carson Consolidate School District, praying that the statutory steps be taken by the board for the issuance of fifteen thousand dollars of bonds of the school district for the purpose of building and equipping an auditorium and classrooms, in addition to the existing school building in said district. The board examined the petition and entered an order adjudicating the fact that it had been signed by more than the required twenty per centum of the qualified electors of the district, and the board directed that an election be held in the district on March 3, 1934.
The election was held and resulted favorably to the bond issue, and the result having been certified as required by law, the board, at its March, 1934, term, entered an order directing the issuance of the bonds. In this latter order it was recited "that the assessed valuation of said Carson Consolidated School District is three hundred forty-nine thousand nine hundred dollars and that fifteen thousand dollar bond issue together with all other outstanding bond issue and indebtedness of said Carson Consolidated School District is not in excess of the ten per cent limit placed by law on the school bond issue, and all of which jurisdictional facts the board finds and adjudges to be true and correct as matters of fact."
Appellants and others protested against the issuance of the bonds, and having been overruled by the board, they appealed to the circuit court and thence to this court. They have urged, first, that the quoted order, attempting to adjudicate the jurisdictional fact that the proposed bond issue is not in excess of the limits prescribed by law, is not a sufficient compliance, in its recitals of fact, with section 6, chapter 235, Laws 1932, which forbids the issuance of school bonds which "shall result in the imposition upon any of the property in the district of any indebtedness for school purposes of more than ten per centum of the assessed valuation of such property." The seriousness of that contention is at once apparent by comparing the strict prohibition of said section 6 with the rather general quoted recital of the board on that point; but we pass to the second contention of appellants, which is the more clearly well taken, and that point is that no valid election has been held, because the board had not prior to the election adjudicated all the essential jurisdictional facts necessary to give it power to proceed, and particularly in that the board, before ordering the election, did not adjudicate, or attempt to adjudicate, the jurisdictional fact prescribed by said section 6 in regard to the assessed valuations of the property of the district and that the proposed bond issue would not impose a school debt of more than ten per centum upon any of the property in the district.
It is the first and one of the most important of all the duties of courts to see to it, before proceeding in any case, that the court has jurisdiction both of the subject-matter and of the parties. Brotherhood of Ry. Trainmen v. Agnew (Miss.), 155 So. 205, 206. When a court of general jurisdiction has proceeded with a case, it will be presumed that the court has ascertained that it had jurisdiction to act, and no special adjudication thereof on the minutes of the court is required. 15 C.J., pp. 827, 828. But as to tribunals of special and limited jurisdiction, no such presumption is indulged; so that not only must such a tribunal inquire and determine whether it has jurisdiction to proceed, first before it does proceed, but there must be entered upon the minutes of the tribunal of special and limited jurisdiction the affirmative recitals to the effect that the tribunal has inquired into the facts which give it jurisdiction, and that the tribunal has found to exist every fact which is essential to the exercise of its jurisdiction in the particular matter.
In the matter of the issuance of the bonds of a school district, the board of supervisors is a tribunal of special and limited jurisdiction, and before the board is authorized to proceed with such a bond issue, three principal jurisdictional facts must be present; and, as already stated, the manner by which the existence of such jurisdictional facts is fixed in the record is by an adjudication thereof by the board, which adjudication can be evidenced only by its minutes. Board of Supervisors v. Ottley, 146 Miss. 118, 129, 112 So. 466; West v. Town of Waynesboro, 152 Miss. 443, 449, 119 So. 809. See, also, Adams v. First Nat. Bank, 103 Miss. 744, 60 So. 770; Boutwell v. Board of Sup'rs, 128 Miss. 337, 343, 91 So. 12; Great Southern Lumber Co. v. Jefferson Davis County, 133 Miss. 229, 235, 97 So. 545; Gilbert v. Scarbrough, 159 Miss. 679, 686, 131 So. 876. Without an adjudication of the essential jurisdictional facts and the entry of that adjudication upon the minutes, the facts had as well not exist at all.
These three principal jurisdictional facts are: (1) That there has been presented to the board a petition for the issuance of the bonds, fixing the maximum amount thereof, signed by at least twenty per centum of the qualified electors of the district; (2) that the purposes for which the bonds are to be issued are of objects authorized by law; and (3) that the bonds so proposed will not impose upon any of the property in the district an indebtedness for school purposes of more than ten per centum of the assessed valuation of such property. Until these three essential jurisdictional facts are found to exist and that finding is entered upon the minutes of the board, the board has no power to proceed a step further.
It follows, therefore, that because the board had not previously adjudicated and entered upon its minutes the third essential fact above stated, it had no power to order the election upon the proposed bond issue, and its attempt subsequently and in its final order to adjudicate that jurisdictional fact cannot be made to relate back as a curative of its previous assumption to proceed without first having done that which was necessary to give it the jurisdiction to proceed. This principle was recognized in West v. Waynesboro, supra, wherein the holding which we now specifically announce was clearly foreshadowed. There the precise argument was made, as seen from their brief, 152 Miss., pages 445, 446, by those contending for the validity of the proceedings, as is made here, namely, that if the adjudication as to the assessed valuation is made at any time before the bonds are ordered issued, this will be sufficient, but the court rejected the contention; and to hold otherwise would be to reverse the order of procedure as to jurisdiction and instead of requiring that matter first to be adjudicated, would, leave it to follow out of its proper sequence contrary to principle and to practical reason.
An election ought not be ordered, and the electors put to the trouble and expense of attending the same, to say nothing of the animosities likely to be aroused among neighbors by these school elections, until the assessments and the existing indebtedness have been examined into and adjudicated, else it may turn out later that the election was useless and should never have been called because of the actual existence of facts which, as to assessed valuations, operated to interpose insurmountable statutory inhibitions against proceeding in the bond issue at all. Moreover, a qualified elector of the district before voting had a right to be officially informed that the proposed bond issue will not exceed the limitations prescribed by law for his and his neighbor's protection; and, as we have already stated, that official information can be conveyed only by an adjudication of the board entered on its minutes.
There are several other objections strongly supported by an excellent brief, but we do not follow them out for the reason that they can be met in a new proceeding for the issuance of these bonds if the majority of the electors shall now desire to take that course.
Reversed and dismissed.