Hunter v. Bennett

26 Citing cases

  1. Sharp v. Smith

    178 So. 595 (Miss. 1938)   Cited 16 times

    The board, therefore had no authority under the law to adjourn from Raymond to Jackson. Sections 5 and 6, Chapter 323, Laws of 1920; Smith v. Nelson, 57 Miss. 138; Fanning v. Funchess, 60 Miss. 541; Turney v. Brown, 67 Miss. 109, 6 So. 737; Brown v. Roe, 62 Miss. 513; Investment Co. v. Suddoth, 70 Miss. 416, 12 So. 246; Johnson v. Futch, 57 Miss. 73; Hunter v. Bennett, 149 Miss. 368, 115 So. 204. Section 5, Chapter 323, Laws of 1930, provides that the board shall immediately at the July meeting proceed to equalize such rolls and shall complete the equalization at least ten days before the August meeting, and shall immediately by newspaper publication notify the public that such rolls so equalized are ready and open for inspection and examination.

  2. Realty Co. v. State Highway Comm

    154 So. 292 (Miss. 1934)   Cited 25 times
    In Pearl Realty Co., the Court held that the provisions of the statutes then in effect were mandatory. It follows that the much stronger provisions of the present statute allow no room for the argument that they are merely directory.

    Individual signatures of members does not constitute approval of state capitol commission. 4 C.J. 1464; Donora Light, etc., Co. Case, 27 Pa. 522; State v. Smith, 23 Mont. 44, 57 P. 449; Fuller v. Board of University, etc., 129 N.W. 1029; Brown v. City of Newburyport, 95 N.E. 504; Hunter v. Bennett, 149 Miss. 368; Attala County v. Miss. Tractor Equipment Co., 162 Miss. 564; Amite Co. v. Mills, 138 Miss. 222; Smith Co. v. Mangum, 127 Miss. 192; C. G. Highway v. Carothers, 129 Miss. 645; Thomas v. Railroad Co., 101 U.S. 71, 25 L.Ed. 950; Monett E.L.P. I. Co. v. City of Monett, C.C.J.D. Mo., 186 Fed. 360; Hitchcock v. Galveston, 24 L.Ed. 659; Louisiana v. Wood, 26 L.Ed. 153; Chapman v. County of Douglas, 27 L.Ed. 378; Trans. Co. v. Pullman Co., 35 L.Ed. 55; Logan County Bank v. Townsend, 35 L.Ed. 107; Marsh v. Fulton, 19 L.Ed. 1040; Thomas v. Railroad Co., 25 L.Ed. 950. Agent's authority is limited by minutes of commission, of which minutes appellant knew, or should have known.

  3. Merchants Mfg. Bank v. State

    200 Miss. 291 (Miss. 1946)   Cited 19 times
    In Merchants Manufacturers Bank et al. v. State, 200 Miss. 291, 25 So.2d 585, 591, this Court said: "... Then, too, the said Marie J. Black would not be entitled to accept the consideration paid to the bank for the said oil and gas lease and the annual rentals accrued to and to accrue thereon without being held to have ratified the said lease..."

    The assessment of the land in suit for the year 1934, under which the tax sale of September 16, 1935, was made, was absolutely void for want of due process of law. Yazoo Delta Investment Co. v. Suddoth, 70 Miss. 416, 12 So. 246; Hunter v. Bennett, 149 Miss. 368, 115 So. 204; Gardner v. Price, 197 Miss. 831, 21 So.2d 1; Brand v. Board of Sup'rs of Newton County, 198 Miss. 131, 21 So.2d 579; Code of 1930, Secs. 211, 3162, 3164; Laws of 1906, Chap. 169, Sec. 12; Act of February 19, 1892, Sec. 12; United States Constitution, Amendments, Art. V, Art. XIV, Sec. 1; Constitution of 1890, Sec. 14. The tax assessor made up two separate assessment rolls of lands in the two judicial districts of Jones County and filed in each district a copy of the land roll for that district alone, and failed to file in each district a copy of the roll for the entire county; and therefore the board of supervisors was unable and wholly failed to equalize the land assessments for the entire county.

  4. Collins v. Wright

    197 Miss. 695 (Miss. 1945)   Cited 1 times

    The failure of the tax assessor to file a complete roll in each district of the county rendered the assessment and sale void. Wray v. Cleveland State Bank, 134 Miss. 41, 98 So. 442; Hunter v. Bennett, 140 Miss. 368, 115 So. 204; Turner v. Cochran, 89 Miss. 206, 42 So. 876; Code of 1942, Secs. 9786, 9789; Constitution of 1890, Sec. 112; Laws of 1906, Ch. 168, Sec. 12, Chs. 167, 169, 170, 171; Laws of 1934, Local and Private Laws, p. 740. The release executed by the chancery clerk, taken in connection with the testimony, is a complete release of all claim or title by the state, and the tax sale, for this reason, is ineffective.

  5. Federal Land Bank v. Cox

    183 So. 482 (Miss. 1938)   Cited 20 times

    Section 203, Code of 1930. The Supreme Court of the State of Mississippi has decided in the case of Hunter v. Bennett, 149 Miss. 368, 115 So. 204, that the approval of the assessment rolls of Hinds County at a void adjourned meeting was void and a nullity. We nowhere in the minutes of the board of supervisors of September 23, September 29, and October 14 and 15, 1930, find entered any notice of this special meeting or a statement of the matters to be considered at these meetings and we earnestly insist that under Section 203, Code 1930, as construed and held in the case of Hunt v. Bennett, 149 Miss. 368, all their acts were a nullity and that the taxpayers were not bound by any order entered at these meetings.

  6. City of Biloxi v. Lowery

    175 So. 200 (Miss. 1937)   Cited 13 times

    Mississippi on the "first Monday, the 19th day of September 1932." Section 3256 of the Mississippi Code of 1930 requires this list to be made up and filed on or before the first Monday in June. There is nothing in evidence to show why it was filed in September, unless we deal entirely with presumptions and presume that there were report, order and sale subsequent to the first Monday in April, 1932. But going back to the assessment of this property the appellant had denied the validity of same, and regardless of the prima facie statute this court held in the case of Henderson Molpus Co. v. Gammill, 115 So. 716, 149 Miss. 576, where the proceedings approving the assessment roll were void, the owner of the record title could have the tax collector's deed cancelled; and in the case of Cuevas v. Cuevas, 110 So. 865, 145 Miss. 456, that the purchaser acquired no title where the board in attempting to fix the date of tax sale in July, 1922, ordered the sale for July, 1921; and in the case of Hunter v. Bennett, 115 So. 204, 149 Miss. 368, that where the assessor failed to file the assessment roll within the time prescribed made the roll void, the tax sale based on such roll was void; and in the case of Cameron v. Whittington McGehee, 82 So. 311, 120 Miss. 595, that Section 4303 of the Code of 1906 requiring the assessor among other things when he files his roll to publish notice thereof and the date of the meeting of the board to consider the same, is mandatory, and in the absence of such notice the collector cannot make a valid sale of the land for default in payment; and in the case of McCord v. Shaw, 27 So. 602, 77 Miss. 900, that where an assessment roll was not filed with the clerk of the Board of Supervisors until September, a sale of real property for taxes levied under said assessment was invalid; and in the case of Carlisle v. Chrestman, 12 So. 257, 69 Miss. 392, that the failure to return an assessment roll within the time allowed by law invalidates a sale made thereunder; and in the case of Womack v. Centr

  7. City of Jackson v. Nunn

    174 So. 578 (Miss. 1937)   Cited 3 times

    In fact, the validity of his adversary's title does not come into the question unless and until the complainant has first plead and proved a perfectly valid title in himself. Acoff v. Roman, 159 So. 555, 172 Miss. 141; Peterson v. Kittredge, 65 Miss. 33, 3 So. 65, 5 So. 824; Metcalf v. Wise, 159 Miss. 541, 132 So. 102; Hunter v. Bennett, 149 Miss. 368, 115 So. 204; Lyon v. Ratliff, 129 Miss. 342, 92 So. 229; Houston Bros. v. Lenhart, 101 So. 289, 136 Miss. 841; Sections 1578 and 3256, Code of 1930; Chapter 25, Laws of 1931; Mitchell v. Tubb, 107 Miss. 221, 65 So. 216. The assessment roll of Hinds county, Mississippi, for the year 1930-31 not having been made in the manner required by law is null and void and, therefore, the tax sale to the state of Mississippi was invalid.

  8. State Highway Department v. Duckworth

    178 Miss. 35 (Miss. 1937)   Cited 37 times
    In Duckworth, Duckworth entered into an agreement with the State Highway Department (SHD) that would allow the SHD to enter the Duckworths' land in order to construct a portion of Highway 49. Id., 178 Miss, at 39, 172 So. at 148.

    The court has held in many cases that such statutes are mandatory and that the minutes of the boards of supervisors and of the State Highway Commission are the sole and conclusive evidence of the acts of the boards and Commission. Bridges Hill v. Board of Supervisors, 58 Miss. 817; Groton, etc., Co. v. Board of Supervisors of Warren County, 80 Miss. 214, 31 So. 711; Marion County v. Foxworth, 83 Miss. 677, 36 So. 36; Smith v. Board of Supervisors, 124 Miss. 36, 86 So. 707; Smith County v. Mangum, 127 Miss. 192, 89 So. 913; Hunter v. Bennett, 149 Miss. 368, 115 So. 204; Pearl Realty Co. v. State Highway Commission, 170 Miss. 103. Testimony of plaintiffs as to market value of entire property before and after taking was inadmissible and prejudicial.

  9. Culbertson v. Dixie Oil Co.

    467 So. 2d 952 (Miss. 1985)   Cited 7 times
    In Culbertson v. Dixie Oil Co., 467 So. 2d 952 (Miss. 1985), our Supreme Court stated that in cases to confirm title, the complainant "has the burden of showing perfect title in himself."

    A.W. Stevens Lumber Co. v. Hughes, 38 So. 769 (Miss. 1905); DeLee v. Anderson, 216 Miss. 888, 63 So.2d 393 (1953); Levy v. Campbell, 200 Miss. 721, 28 So.2d 224 (1946); Calvert v. Mathers, 149 Miss. 671, 115 So. 780 (1928); Hunter v. Bennett, 149 Miss. 368, 115 So. 204 (1928). It logically follows that since Pace and Dixie Oil had this burden throughout the trial they had the burden of proving that the well on the property in question continued as a producing well or that reworking operations were begun within the time prescribed by the lease, if production ceased, and that production was again achieved and continued keeping the leases in force and effect.

  10. Validation of Road and Bridge Bonds

    133 So. 2d 267 (Miss. 1961)   Cited 6 times

    Laurel G. Weir, Philadelphia, for appellants. I. No valid resolution or order for the issuance of bonds for either district was ever passed by the Board of Supervisors of Neshoba County, Mississippi, and therefore the issuance of said bonds is illegal. Boyd v. Coleman, 146 Miss. 449, 111 So. 600; Byrd v. Byrd (Miss.), 7 So.2d 551; Davis v. Grice, 141 Miss. 412, 106 So. 631; City of Grenada v. Grenada County, 167 Miss. 814, 150 So. 657; Hunter v. Bennett, 149 Miss. 368, 115 So. 204; Mississippi State Highway Dept. v. Haines, 162 Miss. 216, 139 So. 168; Price v. Harley, 142 Miss. 584, 107 So. 673; Sharp v. Smith, 180 Miss. 887, 178 So. 595; Tierney v. Brown, 67 Miss. 109, 6 So. 737; Sec. 2877, Code 1942. II. The bonds of District Five are void because at all times necessary a valid petition containing at least twenty per cent of qualified electors of said District were on file with said Board objecting to the issuance of said bonds.