Legal Opinion

Brantley v. Carter

Mississippi Supreme Court

Decided December 15, 1853PublishedCited by 9 opinions

In error from the circuit court of Lafayette county; Hon. Hugh R. Miller, judge. The facts of the case are contained in the opinion of the court. It is not necessary to show to this court the statute of frauds does not apply in. this case. The charge by the court below, on this point, is evidently error. There was no necessity for a bill of particulars.

Read the full summary

In error from the circuit court of Lafayette county; Hon. Hugh R. Miller, judge. The facts of the case are contained in the opinion of the court. It is not necessary to show to this court the statute of frauds does not apply in. this case. The charge by the court below, on this point, is evidently error. There was no necessity for a bill of particulars. The complaint was in the nature of an action of debt, and the statute requiring a bill of particulars has no application ; and further, because the defendant had full knowledge of the cause of action. Payne v. Devinal, 11 S. & M. 400. The…

1Opinion of the CourtJustice Handy

The plaintiff’ in error sued the defendant, alleging that the plaintiff had been previously sued by one Lindsey, pending which suit Carter assigned to Brantley a note of Lindsey held by Carter for $65, with the understanding, that if said note should be allowed as a set-off in the suit between Lindsey and Brantley, the latter should account to Carter for the amount; but that if it was not allowed, and the suit was decided against Brantley, Carter should pay the costs and expenses of the suit. The suit was decided against Brantley, and this action was thereupon brought. The declaration…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Etting v. Bank of United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1826

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Newton v. Emerson, Talcott & Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1886
  2. McConnel v. KibbeIllinois Supreme Court · 1864
  3. American Savings Bank & Trust Co. v. HelgesenWashington Supreme Court · 1911
  4. Hale v. Hinkle Mercantile Co.Mississippi Supreme Court · 1931
  5. Mask v. StateMississippi Supreme Court · 1872

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API