Legal Opinion · Dissent

Gully v. Lumbermen's Mut. Casualty Co.

Mississippi Supreme Court

Decided March 16, 1936No. 31808Published

1Dissent

I concur in that part of the majority opinion which allows a recovery from the year 1932 to the date of the suit; but I dissent from the holding that amounts prior to 1932 cannot be recovered. I take it that but for section 5289, Code of 1930, the appellant could recover for each of the years sued for. I do not understand the majority to hold that the recovery could not be had in the absence of a section like 5289, which reads as follows: "Except as provided herein, or as such companies may be hereafter expressly designated in any other law by express use of the word or description `mutual,'…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Musgrove v. Vicksburg & Nashville R. R.Mississippi Supreme Court · 1874
  2. Ascher v. Edward Moyse & Co.Mississippi Supreme Court · 1911
  3. State Ex Rel. Knox. v. Wyoming Mfg. Co.Mississippi Supreme Court · 1925
  4. Board of Supervisors of Clay County v. Board of Supervisors of Chickasaw CountyMississippi Supreme Court · 1886
  5. Bradstreet Co. v. City of JacksonMississippi Supreme Court · 1902

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API