Booyer v. Hodges
Mississippi Supreme Court
Ekrob to the circuit court of Chickasaw county. Lov-EBING, J. The facts appear in the opinion- of the court. In support of the first assignment of error in this cause, submitted the following authorities: Rev. Code, 1857, art. 2, p. 355 ; Andrews v. Carr, 26 Miss. 577; Owen v. Moody, 29 ib. 79; Foil’s administrator,.etc., v. Wilson, 24 ib. 168; Bingham v. Sessions, 6 Smedes & Marsh. 13; 1 Lomax on Executors, p. 559, subd. 2, p. 560, subd. 4 and 7, p. 574, subd. 18. The jury…
Read the full summary
Ekrob to the circuit court of Chickasaw county. Lov-EBING, J. The facts appear in the opinion- of the court. In support of the first assignment of error in this cause, submitted the following authorities: Rev. Code, 1857, art. 2, p. 355 ; Andrews v. Carr, 26 Miss. 577; Owen v. Moody, 29 ib. 79; Foil’s administrator,.etc., v. Wilson, 24 ib. 168; Bingham v. Sessions, 6 Smedes & Marsh. 13; 1 Lomax on Executors, p. 559, subd. 2, p. 560, subd. 4 and 7, p. 574, subd. 18. The jury found contrary to the law and evidence. The defendants in the court below failed to adduce any evidence tending to…
1Opinion of the Court
SlMEALL, J. :
The second plea alleges that the bill single was transferred by the payees who were executors, in payment of their private debt to the plaintiff, he knowing that it belonged to them as executors and was assets in their hands.
The third plea avers a sale of the bill single to the plaintiff, that the proceeds had never been accounted for, but the sale was for private benefit. These pleas were demurred to.
1st. The first proposition is, whether a negotiation of the bill single by the executors under the circumstances and upon the considerations stated, passed a valid title to the…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Jenkins v. ShermanMississippi Supreme Court · 1900
- Lappin v. MumfordSupreme Court of Kansas · 1874
- Weston v. Merchants' Bank & Trust Co.Mississippi Supreme Court · 1935