at the time the action arose. See State ex rel. Pittman v. Ladner, 512 So.2d 1271, 1275 (Miss.1987); Stone v. Independent Linen Serv. Co., 212 Miss. 580, 55 So.2d 165, 168 (1951); Stone v. McKay Plumbing Co., 200 Miss. 792, 26 So.2d 349, 350 (1946); Deposit Guaranty Bank & Trust Co. v. Williams, 193 Miss. 432, 9 So.2d 638, 639 (1942). There may be merit in the appellants’ contention that the new law creates a properly interest by lying the hospital’s power to hire and fire employees to promotion of the public interest and to promotion of hospital efficiency. Cf. Roth, 408 U.S. at 566, 92 S.Ct. at 2703 (noting that contract providing for continued employment “during efficiency and good behavior” creates a property interest); Russell v. Harrison, 736 F.2d 283, 287 (5th Cir.1984) (<HOLDING>); Sartin v. City of Columbus Utilities
holding that any constitutionally protected property interest employee had as a result of his employment contract has been satisfied by payment of full compensation  including salary and benefits  due under the contract holding that employee may claim contract created based on employer promise of severance pay to employee holding that any constitutionally protected property interest an employee has as a result of his employment contract is satisfied by payment of the full compensation due under the contract holding that contract providing the power to terminate employment for malfeasance inefficiency or contumacious conduct by the employee created a property interest holding that contract of employment providing that professor could be terminated only for cause constituted property right protected by fourteenth amendment