Nixon v. Dillard
Mississippi Supreme Court
From the circuit court of Pontotoc county. Hon. Newnan Cayce, Judge. In June, 1892, E. B. Nixon filed his declaration in assumpsit against Dillard & Johnson, to which defendants pleaded non assumpsit.
Read the full summary
From the circuit court of Pontotoc county. Hon. Newnan Cayce, Judge. In June, 1892, E. B. Nixon filed his declaration in assumpsit against Dillard & Johnson, to which defendants pleaded non assumpsit. At the July, 1893, term of the court plaintiff obtained leave of the court to amend his declaration, the order of the court being as follows: “This day came the plaintiff by attorney, and thereupon leave is granted him to amend his declaration by inserting, ‘Who -sues for the use of Clark, Hood & Co. ’ ’ ’ No amendment having been made in the meantime, at the July, 1895, term of the court, leave…
1Opinion of the CourtCooper, C. J.
While under our laws amendments to the pleadings are liberally allowed, the insuperable obstacle to the appellants’ success is that, throughout the proceedings in the court below, they pleaded in reference to a right of action the legal title to which was in Nixon, and proved one the legal title to which was in Clark, Hood & Co. The original declaration was by Nixon, setting up a right of recovery in himself; it was the ordinary count for goods sold and delivered by the plaintiff to the defendant. The amended declaration was in the name of Nixon, for the use of Clark, Hood & Co., and it set…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Beck v. RosserMississippi Supreme Court · 1890
3Cited by2 opinions
- Ralston Purina Company v. Como Feed & Milling CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1963
- Ralston Purina Co. v. Como Feed & Milling Co.District Court, N.D. Mississippi · 1962