Meacham v. Moore
Mississippi Supreme Court
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Montgomery County. Hon. C. H. Campbell, Judge. At the trial of the issue made upon the appellees’ claim of property, which was seized under the appellants’ attachment against Townsend & Martin, the plaintiffs, without introducing their judgment in attachment, announced that thejr had closed their evidence ; but when the claimants immediately, without any proof, stated that they also closed, and asked that the jury should be instructed to find…
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Montgomery County. Hon. C. H. Campbell, Judge. At the trial of the issue made upon the appellees’ claim of property, which was seized under the appellants’ attachment against Townsend & Martin, the plaintiffs, without introducing their judgment in attachment, announced that thejr had closed their evidence ; but when the claimants immediately, without any proof, stated that they also closed, and asked that the jury should be instructed to find in their favor, the plaintiffs asked leave to introduce the record of the judgment. This the court refused, and gave…
1Opinion of the CourtCampbell, C. J.
Reluctant as we are to ’interfere with the exercise of the discretion of the courts whose proceedings are subject to-our revision, we are constrained to hold that, upon the presentation made by this record, the appellants .should have been permitted to supplement their evidence by introducing the evidence of their judgment in attachment, which was necessary to maintain the issue between them and the claimants. The omission to introduce it before they announced the closing of their evidence, from whatever cause that omission occurred, should not have been made fatal to their cause, but they…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Railway Co. v. Fire Ass'nSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1891
- Fink v. Higgins Gas & Oil Co.Supreme Court of Virginia · 1961
- Perdue v. Caswell Creek Coal & Coke Co.West Virginia Supreme Court · 1895
- French v. SaleMississippi Supreme Court · 1882