DocketNumber: No. 35557.
Citation Numbers: 18 So. 2d 122, 196 Miss. 746
Judges: <bold>Alexander, J.,</bold> delivered the opinion of the court.
Filed Date: 5/8/1944
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 1/12/2023
If section 693 of the Code, which superseded section 1 of chapter 131, Laws 1926, and section 706 of that Code, *Page 766
which superseded the first nine lines of section 6 of chapter 131, Laws of 1926, are plain and unambiguous, as they manifestly are — and as the controlling opinion admits — they should be enforced as written. For, "No principle is more firmly established, or rests on more secure foundations, than the rule which declares when a law is plain and unambiguous, whether it be expressed in general or limited terms, that the legislature shall be intended to mean what they have plainly expressed, and, consequently, no room is left for construction." Koch Dryfus v. Bridges,
If further authority be needed for this elementary rule, see Yerger v. State,
Section 693, Code 1930, provides, which chapter 131, L. 1926, did not, that "In and for each [of the counties] of the state wherein a county court is now in existence . . . there shall be an inferior court to be known as the county court." The county court of Quitman county was then in existence, and therefore continued to exist thereafter. The salary of the judges of the county courts, referred to in section 693, was fixed by section 697 of the Code at $3,600 per year. But according to the controlling opinion, these two plain and unambiguous sections do not express the legislative will as to the salary of the judges of county courts in counties of the class of Quitman county, but that the legislative will relative thereto is expressed in section 706 of the Code. That section is as follows: "In any county not brought within the provisions of this chapter by the terms of the first section thereof, and in which a county court has not been established," etc., a county court may thereafter be established by an election called by the board of supervisors; the salaries of the judges of the courts to be thereafter established, *Page 767 to be graded according to the assessed valuation for taxation of property in the county.
Language could not be plainer or more unambiguous. But according to the controlling opinion, line 15 of section 706 should read as if the words "or have" appear between the words "may" and "come" thereof, thereby amending the statute and exercising a power which, under our Constitution, is vested solely in the legislature. Such an amendment of the statute by construction, according to the controlling opinion, is necessary, not because of any ambiguity therein, but because without the amendment there would be an inconsistency and injustice in the statute. Its inconsistency and injustice is said to appear from the fact that a majority of the court can see no good reason for making any difference in the salary of judges of courts then in existence, and of courts thereafter to be brought into existence, in counties of the same class. The legislature had the right to do just that, if it desired, with which the courts, except within narrow limits, not here present, have no right to interfere. It may be that the legislature did not thoroughly understand what it was doing when it enacted these sections of the Code, and that if it had it would have amended the statute as the controlling opinion has now done. But if that be true, as to which neither I nor my associates have any way of determining, that fact would not justify what the controlling opinion has here done. It is said that if the statute means what it says, and fixes the salary of judges of courts then in existence different from the salary of the judges of courts thereafter to be established, it would violate paragraph (o) of section 90 of the State's Constitution. I shall not pause to discuss this, except to point out that these Code sections are state-wide laws, dealing (1) with courts then in existence, and (2) with courts thereafter to be brought into existence, and to say how such a state-wide law can be declared to be local and private is beyond my comprehension. A casual examination of Millwood v. State,
The judgment of the court below should be affirmed.
I am requested by Judge ANDERSON to say that he concurs in this opinion.
Boatner v. Atlanta Specialty ( 1997 )
Gary P. Boatner Paula K. Boatner v. Atlanta Speciality ... , 115 F.3d 1248 ( 1997 )
City of Houston v. Tri-Lakes Ltd ( 1993 )
City of Jackson, Mississippi v. Lakeland Lounge of Jackson ... ( 1993 )
Bill Evans v. Boyle Flying Serv Inc ( 1993 )
City of Houston v. Tri-Lakes Ltd. , 681 So. 2d 104 ( 1996 )
Mississippi Gaming Commission v. Imperial Palace of ... ( 1997 )
Gillard v. Great Southern Mtg. & Loan Corp. , 354 So. 2d 794 ( 1978 )
Pearce v. Ford Motor Co. , 235 So. 2d 281 ( 1970 )
Johnson v. State , 260 So. 2d 436 ( 1972 )
Shelter Mut. Ins. Co. v. Dale , 914 So. 2d 698 ( 2005 )
City of Jackson v. Lakeland Lounge , 688 So. 2d 742 ( 1996 )
USF&G CO. v. Conservatorship of Melson , 809 So. 2d 647 ( 2002 )
Tyler Edmonds v. State of Mississippi , 234 So. 3d 286 ( 2017 )