Soria v. Stowe
Mississippi Supreme Court
From the chancery court of Harrison county. Hon. Sylvanus Evans, Chancellor. Appellant, Margaret Soria, by this bill in chancery alleged that she was the true owner of forty acres of land described in the bill> and sought to cancel as clouds upon her title the claims of defendants, Hunt, Stowe, and Mrs. Eisetter. A pro oonfesso decree was taken against Hunt.
Read the full summary
From the chancery court of Harrison county. Hon. Sylvanus Evans, Chancellor. Appellant, Margaret Soria, by this bill in chancery alleged that she was the true owner of forty acres of land described in the bill> and sought to cancel as clouds upon her title the claims of defendants, Hunt, Stowe, and Mrs. Eisetter. A pro oonfesso decree was taken against Hunt. Mrs. Eisetter answered denying complainant’s title, but disclaiming any interest in any part of the forty acres except a small portion thereof designated in her answer. Stowe also disclaimed as to any of the land except a small lot or…
1Opinion of the CourtCooper, J.
Appellant is not entitled to relief as against Mrs. Eisetter, be- • cause she failed to show title in herself to the lands in controversy, her title having been put in issue by a denial in the answer of this •defendant. Nor was she entitled to relief as against Hunt, against whom a pro eonfesso was taken, because on the whole record she is shown not to be the owner of the land. Though Hunt suffered a pro eonfesso to be taken, still if on the issue between complainant and his co-defendant complainant is shown not to be entitled to any decree against him, no such -final decree can be made.…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Kelly v. BrooksMississippi Supreme Court · 1879
3Cited by2 opinions
- Kennedy v. East Union Lumber & Manufacturing Co.Mississippi Supreme Court · 1908
- Ladner v. LadnerMississippi Supreme Court · 1881