Hinds v. Pugh
Mississippi Supreme Court
Appeal from the chancery court of Washington county. Harmon, Chancellor. A full statement of the case is given in the opinion of the court. 1. The court had no jurisdiction to give any decree for the recovery of the possession of the land in favor of complainant against defendants helow. 1. The bill did not ask for any such relief, but only for an injunction against payment of rents, and for a receiver of the rents during the pendency of the action of ejectment.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the chancery court of Washington county. Harmon, Chancellor. A full statement of the case is given in the opinion of the court. 1. The court had no jurisdiction to give any decree for the recovery of the possession of the land in favor of complainant against defendants helow. 1. The bill did not ask for any such relief, but only for an injunction against payment of rents, and for a receiver of the rents during the pendency of the action of ejectment. The action at law is treated by the bill as the remedy relied on for the recovery of the land itself. The decree rendered is not…
1Opinion of the Court
Peyton, C. J.:
It appears from the record in this case that Howell Hinds was indebted to Foley, Avery & Co. in the sum of $40,579.55, as evidenced by sundry promissory notes; and for the purpose of securing the payment of said notes, on the 1st day of February, 1867, he made and executed to William L. Nugent a deed of trust to certain lands therein described, situate in the county of Washington.
The said deed of trust provides that in case said notes are not paid at the maturity thereof, the said Nugent, as trustee, at the request of any bona fide holder of any of said notes, is authorized and…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Swift v. TysonSupreme Court of the United States · 1842
- Dickerson v. TillinghastNew York Court of Chancery · 1833
- Perkins v. SwankMississippi Supreme Court · 1871
- McLeod v. First National BankMississippi Supreme Court · 1868
- Depeau v. WaddingtonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1841
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- In re the Estate of GreenbergNew York Surrogate's Court · 1931
- Eckert v. SearcyMississippi Supreme Court · 1917
- First Nat. Bank v. StraussMississippi Supreme Court · 1889
- Harris v. LombardMississippi Supreme Court · 1882
- Eisenberg v. Grand Bank for Savings, FSBDistrict Court, S.D. Mississippi · 2002
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.