Sledge v. Dickson
Mississippi Supreme Court
From the chancery court of Quitman county. Hon. A. McC. Kimbrough, Chancellor. Sledge, appellant, was complainant, and Mrs. Dickson, appellee, defendant in the court below. The defendant filed a demurrer to parts of the bill — certain paragraphs — and answered certain other paragraphs. Upon the hearing the demurrer was sustained and the bill dismissed, and complainant appealed to the supreme court.
Read the full summary
From the chancery court of Quitman county. Hon. A. McC. Kimbrough, Chancellor. Sledge, appellant, was complainant, and Mrs. Dickson, appellee, defendant in the court below. The defendant filed a demurrer to parts of the bill — certain paragraphs — and answered certain other paragraphs. Upon the hearing the demurrer was sustained and the bill dismissed, and complainant appealed to the supreme court. The nature of the bill, so far as concerns the question decided, is shown by the opinion of the court. The demurrer in this case should have been overruled. "We understand the law to be that where…
1Opinion of the CourtWhitfield, C. J.
This decree must be reversed upon the ground that the answer necessarily overruled the demurrer. It is, of course, elementary that a defendant may plead to part of the bill, answer part, and demur to part. It is also true that where fraud is charged in the bill there must be an answer- denying 'so much of the bill as charges the fraud. Counsel for appellee has made an exceedingly subtle and ingenious argument upon these premises, endeavoring to show that he has demurred to specific paragraphs, and not to the whole bill, and that his answer is to other and different paragraphs of the bill, and…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Norwich Union Fire Insurance v. Standard Drug Co.Mississippi Supreme Court · 1918