Thames v. Mangum
Mississippi Supreme Court
From the chancery court of Simpson county. FIon. James L. McOaskill, Chancellor. Thames and others, appellants, were complainants, and Mangum and others, appellees, defendants in the court below. From a decree sustaining’ the demurrer of the defendants to the bill of complaint the complainants appealed to the supreme court.. Mary Thames and her husband formerly owned the land in controversy jointly, each owning an undivided one-half interest.
Read the full summary
From the chancery court of Simpson county. FIon. James L. McOaskill, Chancellor. Thames and others, appellants, were complainants, and Mangum and others, appellees, defendants in the court below. From a decree sustaining’ the demurrer of the defendants to the bill of complaint the complainants appealed to the supreme court.. Mary Thames and her husband formerly owned the land in controversy jointly, each owning an undivided one-half interest. By the death of Mary, in 1893, her one-half interest descended to her three children, the appellants here, complainants below, and to her husband, the…
1Opinion of the Court
Truly, J.,
delivered tbe opinion of tbe court.
Tbe demurrer of tbe appellees to tbe bill of complaint is not maintainable upon any of tbe grounds specifically set forth. This is manifestly a case where equity, having unquestionable jurisdiction of the cause of action, should assume full jurisdiction and settle all disputed questions in one and tbe same suit. This is necessary in order to prevent a multiplicity of suits. It is a well-established rule in this state that in many different classes of suits equity will not refuse to settle in one suit all matters at issue, even though the various…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Green v. StephensSupreme Court of Alabama · 1916
- Tisdale v. Three Insurance CompaniesMississippi Supreme Court · 1904
- J. Pollock & Co. v. Okolona Savings InstitutionMississippi Supreme Court · 1883
- Bishop Bros. v. RosenbaumMississippi Supreme Court · 1880
- Barry v. BarryMississippi Supreme Court · 1887