Butler v. Spann
Mississippi Supreme Court
On appeal from the superior court of chancery ; Hon. Stephen Cocke, chancellor. ■ The facts of the case "are contained in the opinion of the court. The demurrer ought to be sustained, because 1. The cestuis que trust are not made parties complainant.
Read the full summary
On appeal from the superior court of chancery ; Hon. Stephen Cocke, chancellor. ■ The facts of the case "are contained in the opinion of the court. The demurrer ought to be sustained, because 1. The cestuis que trust are not made parties complainant. Story, § 159,165, 207; 2 J. Ch. R. 239; 1 Paige, R. 20. 2. The complainant sets up in his bill separate and distinct rights and interests against separate and distinct" defendants, against whom there is no alleged privity or combination. 3. The trustee has no title which he can assert here; he has renounced and abandoned the trust. 4 The bill…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Handy
This case is brought up by appeal from an order of the chancellor, overruling the demurrers of the defendants to the complainant’s bill, and several grounds are urged in support of the demurrer.
First. It is said' that the bill is defective because the cestuis que trust were not made complainants If there was any necessity for'them to be made parties, this objection is obviated by the second supplemental bill in which they were made parties'. But in virtue of the wills and the decree in chancery in *237South Carolina, Spann, the trustee, would be invested with the right to take possession of the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Lessee of Pollard v. FilesSupreme Court of the United States · 1844
3Cited by6 opinions
- Snodgrass v. AndrewsMississippi Supreme Court · 1855
- Torrent v. HamiltonMichigan Supreme Court · 1893
- Jones v. JonesMississippi Supreme Court · 1911
- Forniquet v. ForstallMississippi Supreme Court · 1857
- Roberts v. StarkeMississippi Supreme Court · 1872
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.