Background

• Four Canton Utilities Commission members were removed by the Canton Board of Aldermen.
• The ex-commissioners filed two circuit-court actions: Action 1—a bill of exceptions appealing the board’s decision; Action 2—an original action for injunctive relief from the same board decision.
• Mississippi Supreme Court has held that injunctive relief cannot be pursued independently when a bill of exceptions is available and that the bill of exceptions provides the exclusive remedy.
• The circuit court dismissed Action 2 on pleadings, and the appeal here concerns only the dismissal of Action 2 (Action 1 remains pending).
• The court affirms the circuit court’s dismissal, citing that two-actions framework falls within the exclusive remedy rule and that the appropriate remedy is via the bill of exceptions.
• The court notes introductory stays under Rule 62 may delay implementation in Action 1, but this does not revive Action 2.

Issues

Key Cases Cited

• Falco Lime, Inc. v. Mayor & Aldermen of Vicksburg, 836 So.2d 711 (Miss. 2002) (exclusive remedy via bill of exceptions; stay considerations under Rule 62)
• Benedict v. City of Hattiesburg, 693 So.2d 377 (Miss. 1997) (exclusive remedy principle; adequacy of bill-of-exceptions remedy)
• Moore v. Sanders, 558 So.2d 1383 (Miss. 1990) (recognition of exclusive remedy in bill-of-exceptions context)
• Cook v. Bd. of Supervisors of Lowndes County, 571 So.2d 932 (Miss. 1990) (two-actions scenario; adequate remedy at law via bill of exceptions)
• A-1 Pallet Co. v. City of Jackson, 40 So.3d 563 (Miss. 2010) (cites exclusive remedy framework; supports dismissal)