Suman Corp. v. Warren
Mississippi Supreme Court
1ConcurrenceRobertson, Justice
The majority suggests that Suman Corporation’s claim for injunction fails because of the weakness of its title to Office Plaza Drive. This strikes me as odd, for I see no weakness. That Suman holds under a quitclaim deed is not a source of weakness. A quitclaim deed conveys title as effectively as a warranty deed. Owen v. Potts, 149 Miss. 205, 211, 115 So. 336, 338 (1928); Chapman v. Sims 53 Miss. 154, 169 (1876); 1 Devlin, Real Estate § 27, p. 42, n. 8 (3d ed. 1911); Miss.Code Ann. §§ 89-1-37, -39 (1972). That the deed excepts identifiable interests is of no concern unless reliance on one of…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Comet Delta, Inc. v. Pate Stevedore Co.Mississippi Supreme Court · 1988
- Thornhill v. System Fuels, Inc.Mississippi Supreme Court · 1988
- Armstrong v. Itawamba CountyMississippi Supreme Court · 1944
- Chapman v. SimsMississippi Supreme Court · 1876
- COLEMAN, ATTY. GEN. v. ShippMississippi Supreme Court · 1955
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.