Carradine v. Wilson
Mississippi Supreme Court
Appeal from the Chancery Court of Holmes County. Hon. E. W. Williamson, Chancellor. S. G. Carradine traded with Dunn & Co., general merchants, and became indebted to them in the sum of eight hundred and twenty-one dollars. About three hundred dollars of this indebtedness was for vinous and spirituous liquors sold by Dunn & Co. to Carradine at various times in quantities less than one gallon.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Chancery Court of Holmes County. Hon. E. W. Williamson, Chancellor. S. G. Carradine traded with Dunn & Co., general merchants, and became indebted to them in the sum of eight hundred and twenty-one dollars. About three hundred dollars of this indebtedness was for vinous and spirituous liquors sold by Dunn & Co. to Carradine at various times in quantities less than one gallon. In order to secure Dunn & Co. for the above indebtedness, Carradine executed two promissory notes for four hundred and ten dollars each, and gave a deed of trust to secure both the notes upon a tract of…
1Opinion of the CourtCooper, J.
Each of the notes executed by the appellants was for a sum greater than the amount due for liquors. The holder could therefore apply all the unlawful considerations to one of them and recover on the other. Zundt v. Roberts, 5 Serg. & Rawle 139 ; Warren v. Chapman, 105 Mass. 87; Crookshank v. Rose, 5 C. & P. 19. Cited and approved in Cotten v. McKenzie, 57 Miss. 418. The moi’tgage was given to secure each of the notes and may be enforced for the payment of that note on which a recovery could be had at law.
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Warren v. ChapmanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1870
- Cotten v. McKenzieMississippi Supreme Court · 1879
- Yundt v. RobertsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1819
3Cited by3 opinions
- Conradt v. LepperWyoming Supreme Court · 1905
- First Union Trust & Sav. Bank v. Mississippi Power Co.Mississippi Supreme Court · 1933
- State v. WilsonSupreme Court of Kansas · 1905