*1 189 pedestrians namely, who observe travel, many, proceeding upon if not most of who are those through arrogated assumption highways, do so they right any have the to drive thereon undimin- speed they may ished which themselves and that elect cross, those who have and are about to first arrived, yield long at an must as the driver on the intersection so sight, through highway appeared regard- has within driving. speed he less at which is This is not pointed opinion. in the former we out as, substance, law testimony says appellee behalf But in her reshaped in been such trial, on the second has evidence opinion on the first manner as avoid the effect testimony appeal. has of detail in which The matter reshaped presents which within a factual contention been probability. contrary reasonable "Wethere- all itself is ground again the verdict on the reverse fore reasonably weight against -evidence, the manifest only impartially that there and add considered, two instructions refusal of the in the court’s no error complained. appellant has which about remanded. Reversed and City Vicksburg. Mayor and Aldermen v.

Stewart May 31, Suggestion Overruled April of Error (Division A. 1943. 1943.) (2d) 35314.] 40. No. So. [13 *3 Brunini & Brunini and Frank E. Everett, Jr., all of appellant. Vicksburg, for *4 Kelly,

Vollor Vicksburg, & Teller and R. M. all of for appellees.

Argued orally appellant, Frank for E. Jr., Everett, Kelly, appellees. Landman Teller and M. R. opinion J., of the court. McGehee, delivered January Harrison Mrs. now 1941, Stewart, de On appellant executor, is the for whose estate the ceased, Square part Block or Lot 287, owned City Vicksburg Proper, Vicksburg known as and which tax assessor ad valorem tax was returned previous; compared with the sum $400 ation at *5 194 being $1,350.

assessment of The owner then absent from city, by the such return was made and verified an attor ney requested privilege doing, who the of so and on which property return the was listed as West Center Lot Part, Vicksburg Proper. 100, 26x No. 287, Block The asses 60, having completed sor later his filed same with the rolls, city the clerk on October 1941, which was within the 24, required by time be submitted ordinances, mayor regular and board of aldermen at its session approval, listing property on November 1941, this 3, pt. speci as Block 287, 26x100', “WC No. without 60,” fying in was the subdivision which same located, by with a recommendation that the assessment returned attorney property raised to $1,150. for the owner be proceedings as hereinafter men After certain were had, subsequent meeting, at a raised board, tioned, describing assessment to sum of $1,350', Stewart, Pt. of Lot 26x100 as “Mrs. Harrison WC Proper;” Sq. Vicksburg and from which assessed 60; ft., appeal by property owner to an valuation there was by provided of Code Section 62', court as the circuit exceptions require therefor, of bill which does not aggrieved “Any person a decision that: but declares city, municipal . . . of a . authorities . of days may, after within ten taxes, of to the assessment as meeting adjournment such decision at which of giv county, upon appeal court the circuit made, the matter ing amount double the ... in bond, judg perform the dispute, . . and conditioned . controversy . . . court the circuit ment of ” . . . circuit court anew in the tried shall Upon on record the circuit court trial board aldermen proceedings had jury in favor proof, a verdict there oral jury, following find was “We, the form: appellees in the judgment Vicksburg,” which a City of for the $1,350; assessing the value entered appeal is taken. judgment this which validity judgment appealed The from is chal- lenged grounds, including on numerous insufficiency description Pt. of “WC Lot the want 287,” etc., *6 process property of due prior on the adoption owner to the raising of the order insufficiency of assessment, justify giv- the evidence to the increase in valuation, ing alleged of erroneous instructions and the of refusal requested, alleged other invalidity instructions and the by jury failing of the verdict rendered fix the property of the value involved.

In order to assigned, determine whether the errors or necessary either of are them, well it is that we taken, state municipality what the charter and of ordinances re- quired relating property as to the assessment of for ad valorem and we that shall also state what was taxation, pursuant done thereto. City Vicksburg operates special

The of charter, under a among requires, things, which, amended, as other that apply property tax assessor shall owner or his each agent prop or her erty a sworn valuation or assessment of prescribed by on to those -law for similar blanks county and re that the assessor assessments; state shall port mayor any a undervaluation, and aldermen at to the prescribed by a of what them, to be with statement time just to be a reasonable and taxable value he believes property; report of assessor shall be such mayor by and aldermen received and considered upon property as owner such to the such and notice time hearing upon may and ordinance; fixed be property any protest objections owner, or made mayor be than it found that valuation less if be property worth, to be believe the and aldermen should any may they and without statement motion, own their he be as to what from the assessor or recommendation amount worth, raise the valuation it to be lieves opinion reasonable belief is fair, in their that, prop previous just, the owner notice to such City may erty fixed an ordinance Vicksburg. given authority mayor The is also equalize property and aldermen to all assessment of city in the so that of the same shall be value equal assessed for an sum, but not its fair and exceed prescribing full worth and market value. The ordinances bpard provide the notice when shall com have pleted city publish work, its clerk shall a notice once paper” week two weeks in the consecutive “official city, notifying owners that the assess objections ment roll has all or been revised ex ceptions thereto must clerk within be filed with the twenty days publication; ordi first and the such provide expiration further that after such nances mayor twenty days, and aldermen will consider objections exceptions pass or filed. on the appears It on November report regular received the session, met in

aldermen *7 submitting approval assessment for final his the assessor adjourned year a to meet as Committee 1941, for rolls for on 6th o’clock November at four of the Whole P. M. reviewing purpose revising assessment and of through day day 15th, November continued from rolls, Sunday, being 17th, that on November and 16th they regular meeting month, of for the second date day adjourned next o’clock until four met and report its made a of of the Whole when the Committee showing the in revising and the assessments work in appellant’s $1,350, $400 crease of by adopted thereupon approved report was and which taxpayers stating that the order entered board, and December o’clock, Thursday at'four afternoon have until shall 11, assessments which to examine within 1941, made by recommendations and the the assessor as made any objections file and to of the Whole, the Committee may they the order thereto, and exceptions have which or objections or failing any person to file states also exceptions precluded from named shall the time within up take board would also that filing thereafter; them objections said assessments and all thereto for consid meeting eration its on hour December at the appears Monday above stated. It in Decem the first regular day meeting, 1st, was ber, December regular Monday meeting', .and that the next the third objection is December, 15th; December was wherefore, meeting here made that of December 11, 1941, arbitrary illegal held on an But, date and void. provisions undertaking without to recite the various city, ordinances of the we have reached different n conclusionthat meetings board hereto the various legally duly fore held. referred to were authorized and appears required taxpayers, As to the notice it pursuant and board to the order of the published sufficient in that clerk a .aldermen behalf, filing ob notice to owners of the time prior exceptions jections De assessments, or mayor and date the cember that on that 11, 1941, duly adjudicated “had been that such notice aldermen duly publication given two consecutive a week for once newspaper Evening Vicksburg a Post, weeks proof City Vicksburg, printed published in the duly publication filed with made and of which has been taxpayers further board,” the clerk of the required fully the ordinances notified, as “were by personal provided, no and also made and such cases urged provided by board”; but it is order of the tice, affirmatively show that adjudication not does that such pub first twenty days expired between date had excep hearing date for and the of the notice lication publication, however, proof objections. The tions or *8 discloses evidence, in introduced with the clerk and on file expired, which days as to twenty had so such that 306, Miss. 150 complaint Hicks, Alvis v. see the case 612. 116 So. not board did objected the order of this that is also It Evening the Post Vicksburg

adjudicate the that re- city, the ordinances paper” which the in “official quired objected published; such notice to be and it also is proceeding property that the disclosed that the owner was given twenty-two days whereas notice, the ordinances provide only twenty days hearing notice before the exceptions objections. of the or notwithstanding alleged

But, these in the infirmities proceedings process upon taxpayers, the had the the appellant appeared meeting the 1941, on December 11, through protest attorney, his a to filed written the complained in increase the assessment and which in- of, inspecting crease the board allowed to stand after property protest involved. This written is not contained record before but the made the ap- us, statement is appellee unchallenged by brief of the and it is pellant only protest objection an to raised filed property the assessed of the increased valuation as insuf- fixed and not to the and aldermen, ficiency description other matters of the or hearing complained afforded thereafter and that of, single upon it con- issue. Nor him was therefore is objected right taxpayer to tended here that ground to make assessment on board description may notice or that have been insufficient required published taxpayers had not been objection though an even the ordinances. And, description sufficiency assess- on the pre- may it must founded, roll have been well ment readily corrected would have sumed board its attention. called then been had if defect same appear ordinances it would Moreover, provided where contemplated for, hearing increased, taxpayer been has returned assessment opportunity affording an purpose him alone for the is by the fixed objections present the valuation to taxing his issue likewise this authorities; and that appeal Sec- under court circuit in the be tried Of of taxes. assessment from an Code tion presented this if would be course, different situation

199- had suit enjoin been one to the collection of taxes or chal- lenging a the of validity tax sale of the in property ques- tion.

Upon the trial in the circuit it was shown that the court, said lot 26 x Number was 100 287 feet in dimension and that there awas two brick story residence located thereon containing about nine although it had rooms, been to think permitted become in a bad state of we repair, that there was ample evidence sustain a to verdict of the jury the assessment fixed the upholding au taxing and this thorities, is true in view of especially the fact the that jurors premises viewed the in question during trial. Assuming to be proper the this the form of true, would the verdict have been, “We, the find for the jury, City of Vicksburg, of and assess value the property of $1,350,” opinion but we are the jury mani festly intended the form of the verdict rendered of uphold assessment as fixed the city, property view of in all of the instructions when considered aas whole. The court instructed for the jury legal obligation it of duty property to its fair and according aldermen to assess the full worth and a of equality market on basis value, if of and that property Vicksburg, other within City these had jury found officials evidence that assessing aforestated in “performed these duties ’’ they should find Stewart for property Harrison form of city; a and that in such event, verdict City find may “We, jury, verdict ’’ if the was told Visksburg. words, other the jury In according taxing property assessed authorities had spe is market value, fair and full worth and to its on basis city ordinances, cifically by required be permitted assessment should such equality, light considered instruction When this stand. effect taxpayer granted of an instruction the evi preponderance from the if the believed jury for assessment the valuation case that dence $1,350 inwas excess of two-thirds its cash market true January value as of 1, 1941, then it should find for decedent, the owner, assess said *10 jury at whatever the should from find the this evidence in case to be its true market value as of two-thirds cash expressly jury that but not less than the was date, $400', the .authorized to assess the at less value they thought if than that such in $1,350' sum was excess of two-thirds of the fair value—an cash market erroneous required in owner’s favor unless instruction the equality opinion the to secure we. are of the that —and nothing’ than verdict the form can mean else in rendered by jury the that city think the fixed did not assessment Again, ob if seasonable excessive. $1,350 jection verdict, the form of had been made to the put proper form. it court could that be in have directed justified not feel court does circumstances, Under the reversing remanding trial a new the case for in and put proper merely form, in allow the verdict judgment affirmed. will therefore be Affirmed. Suggestion of Error.

On sug- opinion court on J., delivered Roberds, gestion of error. (2d) 43] [13 original opinion case in this So. In our appear ordi from the it would “Moreover, we said: provided contemplated hearing for,

nances taxpayer has returned the assessment where affording purpose him alone of is been increased, objections valuation present to the opportunity his an likewise taxing this is authorities; fixed appeal upon an court circuit in the to be tried issue assessment 62, Code under Section express that statement now withdraw taxes.” We mentioned. opinion therein matters on the no " opinion expressly In that also said and this we true jurors premises view of the in fact in viewed ". question during the trial There were four of tax these appeal in the other three cases record cases, shows jury premises, view the in it but this case did appears inspection premises was made hearing and aldermen in connection with taxpayer’s objections to the increase in assess We, court. and not on the trial in the circuit ment, quoted statement. has It therefore, withdraw the above withdraw case, and we no effect merits accuracy. are and briefs The records it for sake and this con all of resulted cases, voluminous in these jury particular did not case which fusion premises. view the

Overruled. *11 v. et al.

Sharp Learned. July Suggestion Error Overruled (Division 1943. B. June 1943.) (2d) 35083.] 218. No. So. [14