Hobson, et al. v. City of Vicksburg, et al.


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2001-CA-01640-COA

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 06-17-2003
Opinion Author: McMillin, C.J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Real property - Public officials - Mandamus - Duty to maintain public streets - Section 21-37-7
Judge(s) Concurring: King and Southwick, P.JJ., Bridges, Thomas, Lee, Irving, Myers, Chandler and Griffis, JJ.
Procedural History: Summary Judgment
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - CONTRACT

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 06-29-2001
Appealed from: Warren County Circuit Court
Judge: Isadore Patrick
Disposition: MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT GRANTED.
Case Number: 00,0125-CI

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: James D. Hobson, Jr. and Joseph G. Strickland




DAVID M. SESSUMS



 

Appellee: City of Vicksburg, Mississippi and The Kansas City Southern Railway Company STEVEN TODD JEFFREYS BOBBY D. ROBINSON CHARLES EDWIN ROSS NANCY DAVIS THOMAS  

Synopsis provided by:

If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals
hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office.

Topic: Real property - Public officials - Mandamus - Duty to maintain public streets - Section 21-37-7

Summary of the Facts: James Hobson and Joseph Strickland own certain real property lying within the corporate limits of the City of Vicksburg. They contend that they have been denied reasonable access to their property along Fairground Street because of the City’s decision to close an iron bridge that carried the roadway over a grade level railroad crossing. Hobson and Strickland filed an action seeking a writ of mandamus to compel city officials to enforce the City's rights under the contract with the railroad by requiring the railroad to repair and maintain the bridge to a level that it would again be safe for vehicular and pedestrian traffic. In the alternative, Hobson and Strickland asked that the City be compelled to repair and re-open the bridge. The City defended the action and also brought the railroad in as a third-party defendant. The City moved for summary judgment which the court granted. Hobson and Strickland appeal.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Private citizens may resort to the remedy of mandamus to compel public officials and bodies to act only as to non-discretionary duties plainly required by law. A decision by a governmental body to attempt to enforce contractual rights alleged to exist in its favor is so caught up in discretionary decisions at almost every step of the process that it is not the kind of non-discretionary duty that can be compelled by an action in mandamus brought by a private citizen who claims that he would be benefitted in some way by the third-party’s performance. With regard to the plaintiffs’ claim that the City has an on-going duty to them to properly maintain and operate all of the public streets of the municipality, the City had the authority under section 21-37-7 to close the bridge to public traffic which would, of necessity, mark the end of the City’s previously-existing duty to suitably maintain and repair this part of the public streets of the municipality.


Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court