Robley v. Withers
Mississippi Supreme Court
Prom, the chancery court of Tunica county. Hon. Percy Bell, Chancellor. Mrs. Robley and others, appellants, were complainants in the 'Court below; Withers and others, appellees, were defendants there. Prom a decree in defendants’ favor complainants ap■pealed to the supreme court. The conflicting views of the ■counsel for the parties as to the facts shown by the record are ■ disclosed in their briefs. The facts as ascertained by the court are set out in its opinion.
Read the full summary
Prom, the chancery court of Tunica county. Hon. Percy Bell, Chancellor. Mrs. Robley and others, appellants, were complainants in the 'Court below; Withers and others, appellees, were defendants there. Prom a decree in defendants’ favor complainants ap■pealed to the supreme court. The conflicting views of the ■counsel for the parties as to the facts shown by the record are ■ disclosed in their briefs. The facts as ascertained by the court are set out in its opinion. This case illustrates the extreme hazard to which the widowed •and fatherless are exposed when gracious and well meaning…
1Opinion of the CourtSmith, J.
On October 31, 1899, Austin Miller, who was the then owner of the land in controversy, being indebted to the Memphis Trust Company in an amount in excess of $25,000, and desiring to secure the payment of same, executed and delivered to O. B. Polk, Jerome Hill, and T. B. Turley a deed to said land for the consideration of $25,000, evidenced by their two promissory notes, of $12,500 each, payable at one and two' years from date, respectively. It was understood and agreed that these notes-*332were to be indorsed and delivered to the Memphis Trust Company, and they were accordingly so indorsed and…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Withers v. Bank of Commerce & Trust Co.Mississippi Supreme Court · 1913