Mayo v. Clancy
Mississippi Supreme Court
Appeal from the Chancery Court of Holmes County. Hon. R. W. Williamson, Chancellor. Under Code 1871, § 1265, the decree was not conclusive until one year after the appellant became of age, so that this bill was filed within the year required by Code 1871, § 1270. The latter section is however repealed, and Code 1871, § 2160, is now alone operative. The bill was therefore in time after the decree became final. Story Eq.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Chancery Court of Holmes County. Hon. R. W. Williamson, Chancellor. Under Code 1871, § 1265, the decree was not conclusive until one year after the appellant became of age, so that this bill was filed within the year required by Code 1871, § 1270. The latter section is however repealed, and Code 1871, § 2160, is now alone operative. The bill was therefore in time after the decree became final. Story Eq. PI. § 408. Is there error apparent on the face of the record ? Not only the decree but all the papers in the case may be examined in considering this question. Story Eq. PI. §…
1Opinion of the CourtGeorge, C. J.
The appellant having first obtained leave of the Chancellor, filed his bill to review the final settlement of the administratrix of his father’s estate. The account was audited and allowed in February, 1872. At that time the appellant was a minor. He arrived at majority on March 11, 1876, and in January, 1878, less than two years'after he became sui juris, he filed this bill. A demurrer was sustained to the bill, and he appealed. Considered as a bill of review, it is not maintainable, because it does not point out errors apparent on the face of the decree predicated on newly discovered…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Norris v. CallahanMississippi Supreme Court · 1881
- Smith v. StricklandMississippi Supreme Court · 1925
- Dendy v. Commercial Bank & Trust Co.Mississippi Supreme Court · 1926
- Box v. HouseMississippi Supreme Court · 1951
- Harjo v. JohnstonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1940