McIntosh v. Rutland
Mississippi Supreme Court
From tbe chancery court of Covington county. Hon. James L. McCaskill, chancellor. McIntosh and others, doing business under the firm name of McIntosh Brothers, the appellants, were complainants in the court below; Rutland, administrator, the appellee, was defendant there. From a decree in defendant’s favor the complainants appealed to the supreme court.
Read the full summary
From tbe chancery court of Covington county. Hon. James L. McCaskill, chancellor. McIntosh and others, doing business under the firm name of McIntosh Brothers, the appellants, were complainants in the court below; Rutland, administrator, the appellee, was defendant there. From a decree in defendant’s favor the complainants appealed to the supreme court. One Culpepper and his wife entered into a contract with the Leake Milling Company for the sale of merchantable pine timber on certain land which they owned. Under the terms of the contract, if the Culpeppers failed to deliver the timber, the…
1Opinion of the CourtAViiiteield, C. J.
The instrument in this case evidencing the agreement as to the sale of the timber is a plain contract, and not a mere option af” all. The interest in the proceeds of the timber, upon the death of the wife, descended to the husband and daughter. The husband, for a valuable consideration, assigned his entire interest away. It is averred in the bill that there are no other assets belonging to the estate, except the interest in the proceeds of this timber. On this state of facts, averred in the bill, it is perfectly manifest that the demurrer should have been overruled.
The decree is reversed, the…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Brenner v. SpiegleOhio Supreme Court · 1927
- Blaisdell v. SteinfeldArizona Supreme Court · 1914
- Hollister v. FrellsenMississippi Supreme Court · 1927
- Case v. HarrisonMississippi Supreme Court · 1942
- Williamson Real Estate Co. v. SasserSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1920
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.