Legal Opinion

Breland v. Lemastus

Mississippi Supreme Court

Decided October 3, 1938No. 33313PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtGriffith, J.

All the matters passed upon by the chancery court, and in regard to which this interlocutory appeal was attempted to he allowed, appertain to the procedural or adjective side of the law, and we have repeatedly held that such rulings are not within the interlocutory appeals statute, Code 1930, sec. 14. Stirling v. Whitney Nat. Bank, 170 Miss. 674, 684, 150 So. 654; Farmers & Merchants Bank v. Rushing, 175 Miss. 826, 831, 167 So. 784; Marquette Cement Mfg. Co. v. New Amsterdam Cas. Co., 174 Miss. 843, 845, 165 So. 615; Love v. Love, 158 Miss. 785, 787, 131 So. 280.

If it may be said that tbe…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Stirling v. Whitney Nat. BankMississippi Supreme Court · 1933
  2. Farmers & Merchants Bank v. RushingMississippi Supreme Court · 1936
  3. Love v. LoveMississippi Supreme Court · 1930
  4. Marquette Cement Mfg. Co. v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co.Mississippi Supreme Court · 1936

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Slater v. BishopMississippi Supreme Court · 1964
  2. Lott v. WindhamMississippi Supreme Court · 1941
  3. Universal Life Ins. Co. v. KellerMississippi Supreme Court · 1944
  4. Atwell Transfer Co. v. JohnsonMississippi Supreme Court · 1960
  5. Prine v. SmithMississippi Supreme Court · 1956

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API