Lindsley v. Board of Supervisors

Citations

• 69 Miss. 815

Syllabus

<p>1. Constitutional Law. Division of counties into judicial districts. Stare decisis.</p> <p>Although the decision of this court in Alfred v. State, 37 Miss., 296, upholding the act of December 2, 1858, dividing Hinds county into two judicial districts, is now dedmed unsound, yet, as the constitution of 1869 was adopted after that decision, and after the passage of another similar act, and the constitution of 1890 was adopted after four more similar acts for other counties, and these constitutions, with provisions as to judicial districts and counties similar to those of the former constitution of 1832, contain nothing restrictive of such legislation, but the latter constitution, by ? 250, expressly recognizes such districts, this ■ court will not now overrule Alfred v. State, or declare such legislation unconstitutional.</p> <p>2. Samis. Division of Coahoma county. Act of 1892.</p> <p>Accordingly, the act of 1892 (Laws, p. 362), entitled “An act to divide the county of Coahoma into two circuit and chancery court districts,” etc., is constitutional.</p> <p>3. Constitution op 1890, § 260. “Boundary of any judicial district.”</p> <p>Section 260, constitution of 1890, which declares that the boundary of any judicial district in a county shall not be changed, unless, at an election held for that purpose, two-thirds of those voting assent thereto, does not apply to changes in the boundaries of counties. The words “ boundary of any judicial district ” refer solely to the line through a county separating the two judicial districts created within a county by the legislature.</p>