Mandevill v. Lane
Mississippi Supreme Court
In error from the superior court of chancery; Hon. Charles Scott, chancellor. The facts of the case are contained in the opinion of the court. 'We rely upon the statute of limitations of seven years as a defence. Hutch. Code, 831, § 8. The bill was filed one day after the expiration of the seven years. The eighth section of that act applies in terms to the “ action of debt instituted on the judgment,” &c.
Read the full summary
In error from the superior court of chancery; Hon. Charles Scott, chancellor. The facts of the case are contained in the opinion of the court. 'We rely upon the statute of limitations of seven years as a defence. Hutch. Code, 831, § 8. The bill was filed one day after the expiration of the seven years. The eighth section of that act applies in terms to the “ action of debt instituted on the judgment,” &c. There was no action of debt on a judgment at the time we filed our bill, allowed by the terms of that statute. Statutes of limitations, as a general rule, apply to the action, and not to the…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice HaNDY
On the 26th February, 1851, the appellants filed this bill in the superior court of chancery, to recover the amount of a judgment at law rendered in favor of the Planters Bank, against the appellees on forthcoming bond forfeited on the 17th October, 1836. The bill shows an assignment by the bank to the appellants, transferring an equitable title to the judgment to the .appellants, and that the corporation had subsequently been dis.solved by judgment of law, whereby it became necessary to ■ come into equity to enforce the judgment.
The appellees pleaded that the right to maintain the suit…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Goff v. RobinsMississippi Supreme Court · 1857
- Fisher v. FisherMississippi Supreme Court · 1870