Opinion
No. 34002.
January 15, 1940. Suggestion of Error Overruled February 12, 1940.
1. SCHOOLS AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS.
When majority of those entitled to vote by petition have expressed themselves in favor of issuance of bonds by consolidated school district, an election is unnecessary unless petition itself has been qualified by request therein that election be called (Code 1930, sec. 6643).
2. SCHOOLS AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS.
A petition signed by majority of qualified electors requesting issuance of consolidated school district bonds authorized validation of bonds without an election, as against contention that, because statute provided that bonds shall be issued "in the manner provided by law" there were brought into statute other provisions by which before bonds may be issued, election must be held (Code 1930, secs. 5977, et seq., 6643, 6737).
APPEAL from the chancery court of Harrison county; HON. D.M. RUSSELL, Chancellor.
J.F. Galloway, of Gulfport, for appellant.
This appeal presents to the court the question of whether or not Section 6643 of the Code of 1930 stands alone in the code governing the issuance of consolidated school district bonds; or whether Section 6643 is to be construed along with Section 6737 of the Code, and 5982, and as amended by Chapter 197 of the Acts of 1932. Appellees contend that Section 6643 is the sole rule and guide, whereas appellants contend that the other sections referred to must be considered along with Section 6643.
All of the school laws of the state were, in the words of the caption of Chapter 283 of the Laws of 1924, reformulated: "An act to re-enact certain school laws, to enact certain school laws for the purpose of clarifying and harmonizing the statutory school laws of the state, and codifying them."
The Code Commission incorporated into the Code of 1930, to all practical purposes, the provisions of Chapter 283 of the Laws of 1924.
The attention of the court is called to Chapter 197 of the Acts of 1932, which amended expressly Section 5982 of the Mississippi Code. It is there provided, as set out in the caption of the act, that such school bonds, authorized by Section 5982 of the Code of 1930 "cannot be issued upon a petition of twenty per cent of the qualified electors; and unless a majority of the qualified electors vote for the issuance of such bonds, at an election to be held for that purpose; and unless three-fifths of the qualified electors participating at an election held for that purpose, vote for the issuance of such bonds, etc." The act goes on to provide that such election shall be held as far as practicable in accordance with the laws regulating general elections in this state.
The case of Lowndes County v. Ottley, 146 Miss. 118, 112 So. 466, is especially in point. It is annotated under Section 6737 of the Code of 1930. It construed and applied Chapter 283 of the Laws of 1924 and specifically informed all persons that the issuance of school bonds by the Board of Supervisors was governed by Sections 105, 106, 182, 183, 184, 187, and 189 of Chapter 283 of the Laws of 1924, for the issuance of such bonds on and after the effective date of said act, "after" the first day of July, 1924.
Section 6737 is Section 182 of Chapter 283 of the Laws of 1924, with the added requirement by the Code Commission that such bonds should be issued according to the provisions of law in the chapter on the public debt, which are Sections 5982 and 5983, all as amended by Chapter 197 of the Acts of 1932.
The contention that because a majority of the qualified electors of the school district signed the petition in the present case is therefore without force. There was a substantial compliance with the provisions of Section 6643 by the petitioners, and the Board of Supervisors, in the Lowndes County case. They actually held an election, which resulted in favor of the bond issue, but this court said that even that was not sufficient, the notice of the election and the proceedings of the elections commissioners would have to be incorporated in the proceedings before the Board before the bonds could be issued.
In the case of the Board of Supervisors of Forrest County v. Clark, 140 So. 733, 163 Miss. 120, in discussing a proposed bond issue based upon a petition signed by a majority of the taxpayers of the district, said: "As required by statute, an election was held in the district to determine whether the bonds should be issued. The election carried in favor of the bond issue. The notice of the election, as required by law stated the purpose of issuing the bonds in the same language as the petition did."
The court will also notice that the annotators of the Forrest County case, supra, in head notes 1 and 3, especially referred the opinion to an application of Section 6643 of the Code of 1930. In view of the fact that this section does not require an election to be held except in that part thereof, fixing the procedure: "The Board of Supervisors may issue bonds for such consolidated school district in the manner provided for by law, etc."
Therefore, when the court said that the law "required" an election, it was evidently referring to the provisions of Section 6637 and 5982 and the amendment thereof in Chapter 197 of the Acts of 1932.
Leathers, Wallace Greaves, of Gulfport, for appellee.
The decisive question presented by the record is whether the provisions of Section 6643 of the Code of 1930 are within themselves effective in the matter of the issuance of bonds of a consolidated school district, where a majority of the qualified electors residing in such district have signed a petition for that purpose and have presented it to the Board of Supervisors of the county in which such district is located; or whether, after such a petition is filed with the Board of Supervisors, it is required to adopt a resolution providing for an election, pursuant to the provisions of Sections 5982 and 5983 (Section 5983 was amended by Chapter 197 of the Laws of 1932) appearing in the Code chapter on public debts, Chapter 152, as is suggested in Section 6737 of the Code.
All of the laws pertaining to the public schools of the state are grouped in Chapter 163 of the Code of 1930, captioned, "Schools," and the amendments of some of the code sections appearing therein by subsequent legislative enactments. This code chapter consists of 35 sub-titles, captioned: "Articles," numbered 1 to 35, both inclusive, under each of which are grouped the principal code sections deemed to be essential to establish and maintain the classifications thus made by the specifications of the respective sub-titles, captioned: "Articles." Section 6643 appears under the sub-title: "Consolidated Schools," under the caption: "Article 13." This code section is a rescript of Section 105, chapter 283 of the Laws of 1924, which was grouped in Sections 99 to 117, under the sub-title "Consolidated Schools," captioned: "Chapter 14," in the act, under the principal Chapter 283, appearing at the beginning of the act. It stood in the laws pertaining to public schools, unmodified, until the adoption of the Code of 1930, more than six years, and it has stood in the Code to this date, without modification, — more than 9 years. Thus, this codal provision has enjoyed a continuous existence for more than 15 years, without modification. Undoubtedly, the provisions of this statute clearly manifest the intention and the purpose of the legislature to provide a simple, expeditious and economical proceeding in the issuance of the bonds of a consolidated school district, in lieu of a prolonged and involved proceeding that must be employed in the issuance of bonds through proceedings, first, by the Board of Supervisors, secondly, by proceedings through the election commissioners and a resultant election, and, thirdly, by further proceedings by the Board of Supervisors, before the validation proceedings provided by Chapter 10 of the Code of 1930 can be instituted and consummated.
It is obvious that the legislature, by the enactment of Section 6643 of the Code, intended to provide one simple, expeditious, and economical form of proceeding to issue the bonds of a consolidated school district when a majority of the qualified electors residing within such district sign and present a petition therefor to the Board of Supervisors, and another mode of proceeding when the proposed issuance of the bonds is initiated by less than a majority of the qualified electors residing within the district. If the observation we have made here are incorrect, then, by the enactment of Section 6643, the legislature has encumbered our system of laws with a vain and useless enactment.
It is a fundamental rule that where a general statute, if standing alone, would include the same matter as a special statute, the special statute will ordinarily be regarded as a qualification of the general statute.
Greaves v. Hinds County, 166 Miss. 89, 145 So. 900; Gully, State Tax Collector, v. Lumbermen's Mut. Cas. Co., 176 Miss. 388, 166 So. 541.
Since the language used in Section 6643 is clear and unambiguous, and it clearly provides for the issuance of the bonds involved here by the Board of Supervisors upon the petition it had before it when the bonds were issued, without the further requirement that an election be provided for and held, it will be an easy matter for this honorable court to determine whether, in its view, Section 6643 is a useless statute as the objectors contend, their contentions being made to rest upon the more general provisions of law relating to the subject, appearing in Sections 6737, 5982 and 5983, or whether it is specially effective for the purpose the legislature clearly intended it to be, as the appellees contend.
Price v. Sims, 116 Miss. 687, 77 So. 649; Toler v. Love, 170 Miss. 252, 154 So. 711.
It is more respectfully submitted that, if the court shall find the provisions of Section 6643 of the Code of 1930 possess the meaning and effect imputed to them by us, then each and all of the objections interposed by the objecting taxpayers have been finally adjudicated by the Board of Supervisors adversely to the objections interposed to the validation of the bonds. No appeal having been prosecuted from the order of the Board of Supervisors providing for the issuance of the bonds, and the order being one that adjudicates matters within the jurisdiction of the Board, such order cannot be collaterally attacked in this proceeding.
Botts v. Prentiss County School Board, 175 Miss. 62, 166 So. 398; Martin v. Board of Supervisors of Winston County (Miss.), 178 So. 315; Hall v. Franklin County (Miss.), 185 So. 591.
There are 161 qualified electors residing in the Orange Grove Consolidated School District in Harrison County. On June 9, 1939, a petition signed by 133 of the aforesaid electors was presented to the board of supervisors praying for the issuance of the bonds of the district in the sum of $30,000 to provide funds to erect, repair, and equip school buildings. The petition did not request that an election be called, but, for the sole authority relied on, referred specifically to Section 6643, Code 1930, which section is in the following language: "On petition of the majority of the qualified electors residing in a consolidated school district, the board of supervisors may issue bonds for such consolidated school district in the manner provided for by law, to erect, repair, and equip school buildings, teachers' homes, school barns, transportation vehicles, and for purchasing lands for schools; provided, the bond issue for other purposes on the property of said school district shall not be included in calculating the limit on the amount to be issued for the purposes herein provided, but only such bonds as may be issued for said district as a separate taxing unit shall be counted in calculating the limit of the amount. The trustees of the school shall have authority to expend the proceeds of bonds for the aforesaid purposes and such funds shall be disbursed on pay certificates issued by the county superintendent, on the order of said trustees."
At the same term and on June 19, 1939, the board made an order in accordance with the prayer of the petition. The order adjudicated and recited all the ultimate jurisdictional facts which were required to be adjudicated an recited under the quoted statute.
Prompt steps were taken for the validation of the bonds by the chancery court; and when public notice was given of the validation proceedings, about 112 of the electors of the district appeared and protested, whence it seems that in less than two months in time there there had been a considerable reversal of sentiment among the electors on the question — but this change was too late to find place as such in the present proceedings if valid at the time taken.
Upon a hearing the bonds were validated by the chancery court, and the objectors have appealed, arguing as their principal ground for a reversal, that the bonds could not be issued without an election; that because the quoted section requires that the bonds shall be issued "in the manner provided for by law", there is brought into the statute the provisions of Section 6737, Code 1930, and of Chap. 152, Code 1930, by which, before bonds may be issued, an election must be called and held.
Appellants rely on some of the language used in Board of Supervisors of Lowndes County v. Ottley, 146 Miss. 118, 112 So. 466 and Board of Supervisors of Forrest County v. Clark, 163 Miss. 120, 140 So. 733. In each of these cases an election was ordered; and so far as appears from the reports of those cases the petitions, although signed by a majority, may have prayed an election. These cases at most would be no more than persuasive, but are not authority for the contention made by appellants.
Among the cases brought to our attention, the one more nearly in precise point is Price v. Sims, 116 Miss. 687, 77 So. 649; and, as regards a statute in the express terms such as here before us, we follow the reasoning in that case, which is that, when a majority of those entitled to a voice have, by their petition, expressed themselves in favor of the issuance of the bonds, it shall not be necessary to incur the expense and delay in having them repeat at the polls what they have already expressed in their majority petition, unless the petition itself has been qualified by the request therein that an election be called; and that the requirement that the bonds shall be issued "in the manner provided for by law" has reference to the details of the issuance, and not to the primary question whether or not the bonds shall be issued.
Some points collateral to the principal question have been presented, but they are not of such nature as to require discussion.
Affirmed.