Johnson v. Sugg
Mississippi Supreme Court
On appeal from the district chancery court at Fulton; Hon. Henry Dickinson, vice-chancellor. Jacob N. Johnson filed his bill to subject a tract of land sold by him to John D. Sugg, to the payment of the purchase-money ; and in his bill he alleges that he took from him therefor his note with personal security. It is not deemed necessary to notice the other facts in the cause. The vice-chancellor dismissed the bill, and the complainant sued out this writ of error.
Read the full summary
On appeal from the district chancery court at Fulton; Hon. Henry Dickinson, vice-chancellor. Jacob N. Johnson filed his bill to subject a tract of land sold by him to John D. Sugg, to the payment of the purchase-money ; and in his bill he alleges that he took from him therefor his note with personal security. It is not deemed necessary to notice the other facts in the cause. The vice-chancellor dismissed the bill, and the complainant sued out this writ of error. Cited 2 Story, Eq. Jnr. § 1217; 15 Yesey, 329, 337, 339, 342-350; Garson v. Green, 1 Johns. Ch. Rep. 308; Champion v. Brown, 6…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Clayton
The only question in this case is, whether a vendor of land, who has made a deed to the vendee, and taken his note with surety for the debt, still retains a lien upon the land for the purchase-money.
The English cases leave the point in much uncertainty. Mackreth v. Symons, 15 Ves. 329; Grant v. Mills, 2 Ves. & Bea. 306. In the latter case, it is said by the master of the rolls, that “there is no case of a security given by a third person, in which the lien has been held to exist.” In this country, the cases with great harmony sustain the rule, that the taking of a distinct security is a…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Fish v. HowlandNew York Court of Chancery · 1828
- Wilson v. Graham'sSupreme Court of Virginia · 1816
- Cox v. FenwickCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1813