Turley v. Ingram
Mississippi Supreme Court
Ellis Turley brought this suit against John I. Ingram, in the Circuit Court of De Soto county on a note for $1,152.68, payable to him, signed Ingram & Co., per N. P. Turley, agent, dated March 18, 1879, due one day after date. The suit was filed September 12, 1882. Defendant filed a plea of non est factum, the Statute of Limitations of three and six years were also pleaded and payment.
Read the full summary
Ellis Turley brought this suit against John I. Ingram, in the Circuit Court of De Soto county on a note for $1,152.68, payable to him, signed Ingram & Co., per N. P. Turley, agent, dated March 18, 1879, due one day after date. The suit was filed September 12, 1882. Defendant filed a plea of non est factum, the Statute of Limitations of three and six years were also pleaded and payment. The cause was tried at the March term, 1883, and resulted in a verdict for plaintiff for $1,125.15, but defendant’s motion for a new trial was sustained and a new trial granted. The cause was again tried in…
1Opinion of the Court
Cooper, L,
delivered the opinion of the court.
Unless the defendant was bound by the note sued on, the debt due to the plaintiff was barred by the Statute of Limitations, and no recovery could have been had. Whether the plaintiff could recover in whole or in part on the note depended on three questions:
1. Did E. P. Turley, as agent of Ingram in winding up the affairs of Ingrain and Turley, have authority to bind Ingram by the execution of a note for the debts of that firm ? If he did have such authority the plaintiff was entitled to recover so much of the note as was given for debts not barred…
2Cases cited34 opinions
- United States v. RogersSupreme Court of the United States · 1846
- Monroe v. StateMississippi Supreme Court · 1893
- Nelms v. StateMississippi Supreme Court · 1880
- Prine v. StateMississippi Supreme Court · 1896
- Burt v. StateMississippi Supreme Court · 1894
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.