Skrmetta v. Moore
Mississippi Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtGriffith, P. J.
Appellees were litigating over the ownership of the small tract of land hereinafter described, when appellant claiming to be the owner was allowed to intervene, and thereupon, as between the present parties, the cause proceeded as if appellant Avere complainant and appellees the defendants. No point has been made as to this procedure. When appellant had produced his evidence and rested, appellees moved to exclude, their motion was sustained and appellant’s petition was dismissed. It is appropriate in this connection that we again call attention to the rule now applicable in chancery as well…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Partee v. PeppleMississippi Supreme Court · 1944
- Burns v. BurnsMississippi Supreme Court · 1923
- Moore v. Sykes' EstateMississippi Supreme Court · 1933
- Panhandle Oul Co. v. TriggMississippi Supreme Court · 1927
- Shoemaker v. ColemanMississippi Supreme Court · 1909
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- Carl McCulloch and Nora Dell McCulloch Cross-Appellants v. Thomas Glasgow, Cross-AppelleesCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1980
- Koch v. H. & S. DEVELOPMENT CO.Mississippi Supreme Court · 1964
- Moore v. KuljisMississippi Supreme Court · 1967
- Mitchell v. RawlsMississippi Supreme Court · 1986
- Jones v. New Orleans & N. E. R.Mississippi Supreme Court · 1952
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.