Hattiesburg Chero Cola Bottling Co. v. Price
Mississippi Supreme Court
1DissentEthbidge, J.
I think the suggestion of error should be sustained to the extent of remanding the case to the court below for a new trial. In the trial of the case it appeared that the witness Anderson was being sought by a process of the court, and they had the right to have the process continue until Anderson was procured, until the adjournment of the court, for the purpose of having his evidence on motion for a new trial, should it be necessary. The plaintiff won, and it was therefore not necessary for him to make a motion for a new trial. It appears that the court admitted the declaration of Anderson at…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Bram v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1897
- Parsons v. Bedford, Breedlove, & RobesonSupreme Court of the United States · 1830
- Capital Traction Co. v. HofSupreme Court of the United States · 1899
- Slocum v. New York Life InsuranceSupreme Court of the United States · 1913
- Ex Parte GrossmanSupreme Court of the United States · 1925
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.