Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
  • Thomas J. Wiltz, J.D. Stennis, Jr., Biloxi, for appellants. I. The resolution upon which the order of dismissal was based in the Court below was null, void, and ineffective in toto, because City Councilman Creel was disqualified to vote on the resolution to dismiss the suit against himself of any other matters in which he had a personal interest, particularly where the vote of this disqualified member was determinative of the action, the general law, the common law, and the sound public policy prohibiting such action. 37 Am. Jur., Secs. 52, 67, 144-45 pp. 666-67, 680, 756-57; Anno. 133 A.L.R. 128. II. The Court below erred in sustaining a motion for a bill of particulars, because the matter sought in the bill of particulars was peculiarly within the knowledge of the defendant below, R. Hart Chinn, who was mayor of the city of Biloxi at the time involved, and the suit being based upon public records including the official audit for the period involved, all of which were fully available to said defendant. 41 Am. Jur., Sec. 272 p. 480. III. The suit in the first instance was properly brought in the Chancery Court, should not have been transferred therefrom, and should now be remanded to the court which can best determine the controversy. Sec. 147, Constitution 1890. No appearance for appellees.
Judges
  • HALL, J.
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
  • Thomas J. Wiltz, J.D. Stennis, Jr., Biloxi, for appellants. I. The resolution upon which the order of dismissal was based in the Court below was null, void, and ineffective in toto, because City Councilman Creel was disqualified to vote on the resolution to dismiss the suit against himself of any other matters in which he had a personal interest, particularly where the vote of this disqualified member was determinative of the action, the general law, the common law, and the sound public policy prohibiting such action. 37 Am. Jur., Secs. 52, 67, 144-45 pp. 666-67, 680, 756-57; Anno. 133 A.L.R. 128. II. The Court below erred in sustaining a motion for a bill of particulars, because the matter sought in the bill of particulars was peculiarly within the knowledge of the defendant below, R. Hart Chinn, who was mayor of the city of Biloxi at the time involved, and the suit being based upon public records including the official audit for the period involved, all of which were fully available to said defendant. 41 Am. Jur., Sec. 272 p. 480. III. The suit in the first instance was properly brought in the Chancery Court, should not have been transferred therefrom, and should now be remanded to the court which can best determine the controversy. Sec. 147, Constitution 1890. No appearance for appellees.
Judges
  • HALL, J.
See more information ...
Smart Summary

CITY OF BILOXI v. CHINN, et al.

HALL, J.

This is a companion suit of City of Biloxi v. J.A. Creel, et al, No. 40605 1/2, decided by this Court on December 9, 1957, and is governed by the principles laid down in Friedhof v. City of Biloxi, 97 So.2d 742, and for the reasons stated in No. 40,605 1/2 the judgment of the lower court is reversed and the cause is remanded to the Chancery Court of Harrison County, Mississippi.

Reversed and remanded.

Roberds, P.J., and Lee, Holmes and Ethridge, JJ. concur.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.
Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

Comments

CITY OF BILOXI v. CHINN, ET AL
(Jan 13, 1958)