Coleman v. Hudspeth
Mississippi Supreme Court
Appeal from the Chancery Court of Warren county. Hon, E. Hill, Chancellor. The facts sufficiently appear iii the opinion of the court. The question presented to this court is the sufficiency of the answer to work a dissolution of the injunction in this cause.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Chancery Court of Warren county. Hon, E. Hill, Chancellor. The facts sufficiently appear iii the opinion of the court. The question presented to this court is the sufficiency of the answer to work a dissolution of the injunction in this cause. We admit the general rule tobe-, that when the answer fully denies the allegations, upon which complainant bases his claim for equitable relief, the injunction should be dissolved, though the rule is not universal in its application. 3 Sumner, 75. But to come within the application of this fule, the denial of all the material allegations…
1Opinion of the CourtTaRBEll, J.
Bill for injunction restraining sale of real estate. Julius Coleman and Julia Coleman, his wife, are complainants. Hudspeth, Adams & Co., respondents, obtained a judgment against Julius Coleman. Execution issued to the sheriff of Warren county, and by him was levied on the real estate now claimed by Julia Coleman as her separate property. The bill is filed to restrain a threatened sale. The averments of the pleading are in substance these : The bill was filed February 28, 1873, and avers, that Julia Coleman is seized and possessed of certain real estate in said county, as her own separate…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- State v. Northern Central Railway Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1862
- Miller v. McDougallMississippi Supreme Court · 1870
- Benton v. CrowderMississippi Supreme Court · 1846
3Cited by1 opinion
- Richardson v. LightcapMississippi Supreme Court · 1876