positive rule in Mississippi

2000Board of Supervisors v. Dawson, 208 Miss. 666, 672 , 45 So.2d 253 (1950) (quoting Lee County v. James, 178 Miss. 554, 559 , 174 So. 76, 77 (1937)); see also Thompson v. Jones County Community Hosp., 352 So.2d 795, 797 (Miss.1977) ("We therefore conclude that a contract with a public board may be enforced if enough of the terms and conditions of the contract are contained in the minutes ....") (emphasis added); Colle Towing Co. v. Harrison County, 213 Miss. 442, 448 , 57 So.2d 171, 172 (1952) ("It has been repeatedly held in this State that a board of supervisors can contract and render the cou

2000Board of Supervisors v. Dawson, 208 Miss. 666, 672 , 45 So.2d 253 (1950) (quoting Lee County v. James, 178 Miss. 554, 559 , 174 So. 76, 77 (1937)); see also Thompson v. Jones County Community Hosp., 352 So.2d 795, 797 (Miss.1977) ("We therefore conclude that a contract with a public board may be enforced if enough of the terms and conditions of the contract are contained in the minutes ....") (emphasis added); Colle Towing Co. v. Harrison County, 213 Miss. 442, 448 , 57 So.2d 171, 172 (1952) ("It has been repeatedly held in this State that a board of supervisors can contract and render the cou

2002Id.

1996Butler v. Board of Supervisors for Hinds County, 659 So.2d 578 , 579 (Miss. 1995). [A]lways it has been the positive rule in this state, both by statute and by a long line of judicial decisions strictly enforcing those statutes, that boards of supervisors [sic] can bind counties, or districts therein, only when acting within their authority and in the mode and manner by which this authority is to be exercised under the statutes, and that their contracts, and every other substantial action taken by them must be evidenced by entries on their minutes, and can be evidenced in no other way.

1981In Patrick v. State , this Court stated, in order to justify such an instruction on behalf of the state, the evidence must show: The unlawful act must be one that is calculated and intended to provoke a difficulty or encounter wherein the accused is afforded the opportunity to and does slay his adversary... . (emphasis added) 285 So.2d at 169 .

1981We reiterated this positive principle in the case of McBride v. Haynes, 247 So.2d 129 (Miss.1971).

1950Dixon v. Greene County et al., 76 Miss. 794 , 25 So. 665 ; Corinth to Gulf Highway et al. v. Carothers & Co., 129 Miss. 645 , 92 So. 696 ; Lee County v. James, 178 Miss. 554 , 174 So. 76, 77 , where we said “And always it has been the positive rule in this state, both by statute and by a long line of judicial decisions strictly enforcing those statutes, that boards of supervisions can bind counties, or districts therein, only when acting within their authority and in the mode and manner by which this authority is to be exercised under the statutes, and that their contracts, and every other sub

1950Dixon v. Greene County et al., 76 Miss. 794 , 25 So. 665 ; Corinth to Gulf Highway et al. v. Carothers & Co., 129 Miss. 645 , 92 So. 696 ; Lee County v. James, 178 Miss. 554 , 174 So. 76, 77 , where we said “And always it has been the positive rule in this state, both by statute and by a long line of judicial decisions strictly enforcing those statutes, that boards of supervisions can bind counties, or districts therein, only when acting within their authority and in the mode and manner by which this authority is to be exercised under the statutes, and that their contracts, and every other sub

1950Dixon v. Greene County et al., 76 Miss. 794 , 25 So. 665 ; Corinth to Gulf Highway et al. v. Carothers & Co., 129 Miss. 645 , 92 So. 696 ; Lee County v. James, 178 Miss. 554 , 174 So. 76, 77 , where we said “And always it has been the positive rule in this state, both by statute and by a long line of judicial decisions strictly enforcing those statutes, that boards of supervisions can bind counties, or districts therein, only when acting within their authority and in the mode and manner by which this authority is to be exercised under the statutes, and that their contracts, and every other sub

1940It was held in the case of Whitehurst v. Smith, 170 Miss. 535 , 155 So. 683 , that under the requirements of Section 6610 of the Code of 1930, “it is an essential prerequisite to the issuance of a teacher’s pay certificate that the teacher in a consolidated school shall have a legal contract with the superintendent of education.” That section expressly provides, among other things, that “it shall be unlawful to issue a certificate for services rendered before the contract is made and signed.” There are certain exceptions to this positive requirement of the statute, but those exceptions do not

1940It was held in the case of Whitehurst v. Smith, 170 Miss. 535 , 155 So. 683 , that under the requirements of Section 6610 of the Code of 1930, “it is an essential prerequisite to the issuance of a teacher’s pay certificate that the teacher in a consolidated school shall have a legal contract with the superintendent of education.” That section expressly provides, among other things, that “it shall be unlawful to issue a certificate for services rendered before the contract is made and signed.” There are certain exceptions to this positive requirement of the statute, but those exceptions do not

1909It is held in Montjoy v. Delta Bank, 76 Miss. 402 , 24 South. 870 , that “a contract violative of public policy, or of a positive rule of law, or against good morals, will not be enforced, even at the suit of an innocent transferee, although it be evidenced by a promissory note payable to bearer.” It was held in Campbell v. National Bank, 74 Miss. 526 , 21 South. 400 , 23 South. 25 , that “a contract for the payment of differences in prices, arising out of the rise and fall in the market price above or below the contract price, is a wager on the future price of the commodity, and is therefore

1909It is held in Montjoy v. Delta Bank, 76 Miss. 402 , 24 South. 870 , that “a contract violative of public policy, or of a positive rule of law, or against good morals, will not be enforced, even at the suit of an innocent transferee, although it be evidenced by a promissory note payable to bearer.” It was held in Campbell v. National Bank, 74 Miss. 526 , 21 South. 400 , 23 South. 25 , that “a contract for the payment of differences in prices, arising out of the rise and fall in the market price above or below the contract price, is a wager on the future price of the commodity, and is therefore

1895These, distinctly and emphatically, are the unassailable grounds upon which the opinion was predicated, and the reasoning of the supreme court of North Carolina, in IIays v. IIunt, 85 N. C., 303 , is quoted at length, showing, beyond challenge, that the decision was rested on these grounds.