TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

City of Hattiesburg v. Pritchett

City of Hattiesburg v. Pritchett.

City of Hattiesburg v. Pritchett, 134 So. 140 (Miss. 1931)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Mississippi Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
May 4, 1931
Docket
No. 29433.
Judges
Smith
Citations
134 So. 140160 Miss. 3421931 Miss. LEXIS 181

Opinion of the Court — Smith

*344 • Smith, C. J., delivered the opinion of the court.

The appellant, a municipal corporation, instituted a suit of eminent domain in the county court of Forrest county to condemn land owned by the appellee for use by the appellant as. a street, and, from a judgment awarding the appellee damages in the sum of four hundred fifty dollars, the appellant, city of Hattiesburg, appealed to the circuit court. In that court a motion was made by the appellant for a trial of the case de novo, which motion was overruled, and’ the judgment of the county court was affirmed.

The appellant’s contention is that the trial of an eminent domain case in the circuit court on appeal from the county court is governed by section 1497, Code of 19301, and not by section 704, Code of 1930', and therefore the trial in the court below should have been de novo.

A special eminent domain court is created by the statute now appearing- as section 1481, Code 1930', to consist of a justice of the peace and a, jury,' and, by the statute now appearing as section 1497 of that Code, appeals from such special eminent domain courts shall be to the circuit court and there tried de novo.

*345 The effect of chapter 131, Laws of 1926, section 693, Code 1930', is to abolish special eminent domain courts in counties having county courts, and to vest the jurisdiction thereof in the county court. Section 704, Code of 1930, provides for appeals from the county court to the circuit court, and the procedure to be followed by the circuit court in the trial thereof. This statute includes all appeals from the county court to the circuit court, and consequently governs here.

Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1931: 11932: 11938: 11939: 119312026peak 1931 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Mississippi State Highway Department v. Haines139 So. 168 (Miss. 1932)
  2. Mississippi State Highway Commission v. Reddoch186 So. 298 (Miss. 1939)
  3. State Highway Commission v. Day180 So. 794 (Miss. 1938)
  4. State v. Carraway134 So. 846 (Miss. 1931)

Most recent

  1. Mississippi State Highway Commission v. Reddoch186 So. 298 (Miss. 1939)
  2. State Highway Commission v. Day180 So. 794 (Miss. 1938)
  3. Mississippi State Highway Department v. Haines139 So. 168 (Miss. 1932)
  4. State v. Carraway134 So. 846 (Miss. 1931)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list