Town of Terry v. Smith, 48 So. 3d 507

Plaintiffs Abston and the Town of Terry Democratic Executive Committee sought circuit-court review of a municipal election commission decision disqualifying the Democratic Committee.
They pursued relief under Mississippi Code Section 11-51-75 (appeal by bill of exceptions) rather than the more specific election-contest provisions.
The trial court concluded the pleading was inapplicable to municipal elections and advised pursuing 11-51-75 as the remedy.
Abston and the Committee amended their complaint to plead appeal by bill of exceptions and filed the required bill of exceptions.
The circuit court dismissed the action as untimely for filing beyond the ten-day deadline, and the notice of appeal followed on June 2, 2009.
The record shows Abston had actual notice of the Election Commission’s March 23, 2009 decision, but did not file the bill of exceptions within ten days.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether 11-51-75 governs and bars relief over the election commission decision	Abston/Committee urged certiorari under 11-51-93/95, not 11-51-75.	Trial court correctly applied 11-51-75 as the applicable remedy for this pre-election challenge to a municipal decision.	Appeal by bill of exceptions applies; time-bar defeats the claim.
Whether treatable as certiorari was appropriate given the pleadings raised on appeal	Petition for certiorari should govern because two statutes address the subject.	The pleadings clearly invoked 11-51-75; certiorari is not applicable here.	Certiorari argument waived; 11-51-75 controls and remains time-barred.
Whether Crider v. Howard mandates treating the petition as certiorari rather than bill of exceptions	This case requires certiorari treatment when the statute is imprecise.	Here the amended complaint invoked 11-51-75; Crider is distinguishable.	Distinguishable; court rightly applied 11-51-75 and dismissed as time-barred.
Whether lack of notice affects timeliness under the applicable procedure	There is a factual dispute about notice of the decision.	There is no notice requirement; ten-day deadline controls.	No notice requirement; actual notice does not extend the deadline; dismissal upheld.

Crider v. Howard, 295 So.2d 776 (Miss. 1974) (treating similar petitions under other statutes; credibility of pleading controls remedy)
McIntosh v. Sanders, 831 So.2d 1111 (Miss. 2002) (specific election-contest statute controls over general appeal provisions)
Coast Materials Co. v. Harrison County Dev. Comm’n, 730 So.2d 1128 (Miss. 1998) (bright-line ten-day rule governs timeliness when reviewing decisions)
Johnson v. State, 29 So.3d 738 (Miss. 2009) (procedural questions regarding timing and notice)
Ferguson v. Bd. of Supervisors, 14 So. 81 (Miss. 1893) (older authority on administrative-review procedures)