Allen v. Mandaville
Mississippi Supreme Court
In error from the southern district chancery court at Natchez; Hon. James M. Smiley, vice-chancellor. The opinion contains a statement of the facts of the case.
Read the full summary
In error from the southern district chancery court at Natchez; Hon. James M. Smiley, vice-chancellor. The opinion contains a statement of the facts of the case. Where there has been no service of subpoena on, or appearance of the deceased defendant entered in the original suit, neither a scire facias nor bill of revivor will lie in such a case. 3 Dan’l, Ch. Pr. 1673 ; lb. 1698. The courts have held, that when a suit is commenced by service of a subpmna on the parties, and the cause thereby in court, the statute of limitations ceased to run from the first step taken towards the commencement of…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Handy
The defendants in error filed their bill in the southern district chancery court against the intestate of the plaintiffs in error and others, upon which process was issued, upon which the sheriff made return, that the defendant, the plaintiffs’ intestate, was dead before the writ came to his hands. And thereupon a scire facias was issued to revive the suit against the plaintiffs in error, as his administrators, which was returned duly served, and a pro confesso taken, and final decree rendered against them.
The plaintiffs in error now insist that, under the circumstances of the case, it was…
2Cited by4 opinions
- McClendon & Co. v. Hernando Phosphate Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1897
- Grant v. BennettIllinois Supreme Court · 1880
- Allen v. PooleMississippi Supreme Court · 1877
- Pearson v. Wm. R. Moore Dry Goods Co.Mississippi Supreme Court · 1927