Darcey v. Lake
Mississippi Supreme Court
Appeal from the chancery court of Claiborne county. Smiley, J. The facts of this case, which exhibit the precise point on which its decision was made to turn, are minutely and clearly stated in the opinion of the court. It was objected in the court below that the bill was multifarious, both as to subject-matter and to parties defendant.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the chancery court of Claiborne county. Smiley, J. The facts of this case, which exhibit the precise point on which its decision was made to turn, are minutely and clearly stated in the opinion of the court. It was objected in the court below that the bill was multifarious, both as to subject-matter and to parties defendant. It is impossible, say all the authorities, to lay down any universal rule as to what constitutes multifariousness in a bill; and the application of the rule is held to depend upon the particular circumstances of the case presented. Butler et al. v. Spain et…
1Opinion of the Court
Peytok, C. J. :
On the 12th day of March, 1859, George Lake, Sr., executed to J. W. Ohamplin three promissory notes for $3,660 47 each payable in two, three and four years thereafter, and; *114to secure the payment of tlie same the said George Lake and Matilda J., Ms wife, on the 16th day of July, 1859, executed to said J. W. Champion a mortgage on certain real and personal property, situate in Claiborne county in this state, being the same land which was conveyed by one Jonathan McCaleb to the said Matilda J. and her children on the 24th day of March, 1851.
On the 15th day of March, 1862, the said…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Carter v. KimbroughMississippi Supreme Court · 1920
- Neill v. WellsMississippi Supreme Court · 1933
- First National Bank v. KirkbySupreme Court of Florida · 1901
- Chicago Telephone Co. v. Illinois Manufacturers' Ass'nAppellate Court of Illinois · 1903
- Clark v. StateMississippi Supreme Court · 1911