Goforth v. Stingley
Mississippi Supreme Court
From the circuit court of Rankin county. Hon. James H. Neville, Judge. Goforth and others, appellants, were plaintiffs in the court below; Stingley, Taylor & Co., appellees, were defendants there. From a judgment on a peremptory instruction in defendant’s favor, the plaintiffs appealed to the supreme court. The opinion fully states the facts. The court below erred in disallowing the appellant’s application to amend their bill of particulars.
Read the full summary
From the circuit court of Rankin county. Hon. James H. Neville, Judge. Goforth and others, appellants, were plaintiffs in the court below; Stingley, Taylor & Co., appellees, were defendants there. From a judgment on a peremptory instruction in defendant’s favor, the plaintiffs appealed to the supreme court. The opinion fully states the facts. The court below erred in disallowing the appellant’s application to amend their bill of particulars. They offered to amend it so as to show that plaintiffs deraigned title to the land from the government. Code 1892, § 1652, authorized the amendment and…
1Opinion of the CourtCali-ioon, J.
At the return term of this action of ejectment, the parties having joined issue on the plea of not guilty, and each having-demanded of the other a bill of particulars of title, the court allowed each ninety days in which to file the same, and each did file a bill of particulars within that period. The defendants below, in their bill of particulars, claimed title solely from adverse possession for more than ten years before suit brought, but conclude it in the following words: “And their title to said land, if there ever was any deficiency therein, which they do not admit, has been perfected…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Early & Co. v. LongMississippi Supreme Court · 1906