Sugg v. Thrasher
Mississippi Supreme Court
Appeal from the Superior Court of Chancery. Hon. Charles Scott, chancellor. The demurrer should have been sustained and the cross-bill dismissed, because it is apparent upon the face of the bill, and of the exhibits referred to, and made a part of it, that the bar of the statute has attached to the judgment, in consequence, alone, of the laches of the complainants.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Superior Court of Chancery. Hon. Charles Scott, chancellor. The demurrer should have been sustained and the cross-bill dismissed, because it is apparent upon the face of the bill, and of the exhibits referred to, and made a part of it, that the bar of the statute has attached to the judgment, in consequence, alone, of the laches of the complainants. The injunction, which is made a part of the cross-bill, neither restrains the complainants from issuing execution, suing out a scire facias, or bringing an action of debt on the judgment. It enjoins a levy of execution on property…
1Opinion of the Court
Fishek, J.,
delivered tbe opinion of tbe court.
This is an appeal from a decree of tbe Superior Court of Chancery, overruling tbe appellants’ demurrer to tbe appellees’ cross-bill.
Tbe complainants, as administrators of tbe estate of Duncan H. McIntyre, deceased, filed their bill in tbe Superior Court of Chancery, for tbe purpose of enjoining tbe appellees from further proceedings to enforce a judgment recovered against tbe complainants as such administrators, in tbe Circuit Court of Claiborne county. Tbe bill was filed in November, 1845. Tbe defendants appeared to the December term following,…
2Cited by10 opinions
- Street v. StateMississippi Supreme Court · 1870
- Haggart v. WilczinskiCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1906
- Hensen v. PeterWashington Supreme Court · 1917
- Guaranteed State Bank of Durant v. D'YarmettSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1917
- Wilkinson v. FlowersMississippi Supreme Court · 1859
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.