Pope v. Bowman
Mississippi Supreme Court
In error from the circuit court of Yazoo county; Hon. Robert C. Perry, judge. The opinion contains the facts of the case. The only question raised by the record in this cause, is, whether the court erred in overruling the demurrer of plaintiff to the fourth answer of the defendant. The defendant in error relies in support of'his answer on the first clause of twelfth section of the act of limitations of 1844, Hutch.
Read the full summary
In error from the circuit court of Yazoo county; Hon. Robert C. Perry, judge. The opinion contains the facts of the case. The only question raised by the record in this cause, is, whether the court erred in overruling the demurrer of plaintiff to the fourth answer of the defendant. The defendant in error relies in support of'his answer on the first clause of twelfth section of the act of limitations of 1844, Hutch. Code, p. 831, which provides “ that no action or suit, &c., shall be brought upon any judgment or other cause of action after the expiration of four years,” &c. The question…
1Opinion of the CourtChief Justice Smith
The only question in this case is, whether the claim sued for in the circuit court was barred by the provisions of the twelfth section of the statute of 1844, (Hutch. 831).
The facts of the case were as follow: A note was made by J. A. and D. C. Thomas, payable to the order of N. & E. O’Reiley & Co., at the Commercial Bank of Manchester, and indorsed by the payees to P. B. Pope, who indorsed it to the bank. After its maturity suit was brought on the note against all of these parties by the bank. Pending the suit the O’Reileys died, and the suit was abated as to them. Judgment after-wards, on…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Sivley v. SummersMississippi Supreme Court · 1880
- Rogers v. RosenstockMississippi Supreme Court · 1918