Hudson v. Watson
Mississippi Supreme Court
In error from the circuit court of Lafayette county; Hon. Hugh R. Miller, judge. This was an action brought at law by the plaintiff in error against the defendant, on a bond executed by the latter in a penalty of $440, by which it appears, that -the defendant had sóld to the plaintiff a tract of land, in payment for the balance of the purchase-money, of which the plaintiff had executed to defendant his note for $87.50, to be paid 25th December, 1850, the tenor of the bond…
Read the full summary
In error from the circuit court of Lafayette county; Hon. Hugh R. Miller, judge. This was an action brought at law by the plaintiff in error against the defendant, on a bond executed by the latter in a penalty of $440, by which it appears, that -the defendant had sóld to the plaintiff a tract of land, in payment for the balance of the purchase-money, of which the plaintiff had executed to defendant his note for $87.50, to be paid 25th December, 1850, the tenor of the bond being, that the defendant,' upon the payment of said note, should make the plaintiff “ a general warranty deed” for the…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Handy
The first ground of error complained of in the court below and urged here, is, thpt the deposition of the witness Simmons was improperly admitted in evidence, because the notice of taking it was insufficient. It was the deposition of a witness about to depart from the State, and was taken de bene esse. The notice appears to have been served on the adverse party about 8 o’clock on the morning of the 19th August, he residing about two and a half miles from the place appointed for taking it. He was informed that he could have until 3 or 4 o’clock, p. m., of the 20th, the day appointed to take…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Hill v. SamuelMississippi Supreme Court · 1856