Field v. Middlesex Banking Co.
Mississippi Supreme Court
From the chancery court of Bolivar county. JíoN. James 0. Longstreet, Chancellor. Bate Field, the appellant, was' the complainant in the court below; the Middlesex Banking Co. and others, were defendants , there. The facts upon which the decision of the court is based are sufficiently apparent from the opinion.
Read the full summary
From the chancery court of Bolivar county. JíoN. James 0. Longstreet, Chancellor. Bate Field, the appellant, was' the complainant in the court below; the Middlesex Banking Co. and others, were defendants , there. The facts upon which the decision of the court is based are sufficiently apparent from the opinion. Unless this complainant contracted away her estate with the benefit of competent and independent advice, at arms’ length, possessed of knowledge of all the material facts within the knowledge of the defendants, she was entitled to a decree vesting her with title in fee to the four…
1Opinion of the Court
'Woods, O. T.,
delivered the opinion of the court.
It would involve so great time and labor to abstract and collate the material facts bearing upon the issues involved in this litigation, as found in the vast record (three large volumes) before us, that we do not feel required to enter upon that work. Besides, we do not think such abstract and collation at all necessary to a thorough comprehension of the conclusions at which we have arrived, and our reasons therefor.
That there was an illegal combination and conspiracy entered into between an unfaithful trustee and the appellees to divest the…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Wimley v. ReidMississippi Supreme Court · 2008
- Johnson v. RaoMississippi Supreme Court · 2007
- Maas v. LonstorfCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1912
- Middlesex Banking Co. v. FieldMississippi Supreme Court · 1904
- Brewer v. BrowningMississippi Supreme Court · 1917
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.