Prewett v. Buckingham
Mississippi Supreme Court
ON appeal from the northern district chancery court at Fulton; Hon. Henry Dickinson, vice-chancellor. The facts of the case are sufficiently set forth in the opinion of the court. 1. The court should have sustained the defence of the statute of limitations.
Read the full summary
ON appeal from the northern district chancery court at Fulton; Hon. Henry Dickinson, vice-chancellor. The facts of the case are sufficiently set forth in the opinion of the court. 1. The court should have sustained the defence of the statute of limitations. Hardy received his deed for the land in August, 1840. His written acknowledgment of Buckingham’s interest therein is dated in May, 1843. This suit was instituted the 24th September, 1851. Eight years and five months after the cause of action (if any such there was) accrued; and seven years and seven months after the passage of the act of…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Handy
The substance of the bill in this case is, that the complainant and William Hardy were copartners in the mercantile business, and as such recovered a judgment at law, under which certain lands were sold, and purchased by Hardy, to whom a deed was made by the sheriff, in his individual name, in the year 1840 ; but no money was paid except the costs of suit, but the money was treated as paid, he being one of the plaintiffs in the execution. Plardy went into possession of the lands immediately after his purchase, and retained the same until his death, in the year 1850, enjoying the proceeds and…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Currier v. StudleyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1893
- Wholey v. Cal-Maine Foods, Inc.Mississippi Supreme Court · 1988
- Cooper v. CooperMississippi Supreme Court · 1884
- Sullivan v. NoblesMississippi Supreme Court · 1951
- Stebbins v. HayesMississippi Supreme Court · 1980
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.