Cook v. Reynolds
Mississippi Supreme Court
Appeal from the Chancery Court of Monroe County. Hon. Lafayette Haughton, Chancellor. The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court. I regard the Statute of Limitations as furnishing a complete remedy for the complainant. Our statute declares that in matters of mortgage, trust, or vendor’s lien, where the note — the evidence of debt — is barred, the lien is .barred. Before the Code of 1857 the bar of the debt was nota bar of the lien, and our courts so held.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Chancery Court of Monroe County. Hon. Lafayette Haughton, Chancellor. The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court. I regard the Statute of Limitations as furnishing a complete remedy for the complainant. Our statute declares that in matters of mortgage, trust, or vendor’s lien, where the note — the evidence of debt — is barred, the lien is .barred. Before the Code of 1857 the bar of the debt was nota bar of the lien, and our courts so held. Since the act of 1857 the decisions have been in accordance with the rule asserted. The whole subject of extinguishing…
1Opinion of the Court
■ Campbell, J.,
delivered the opinion of the court.
The case was tried and decided on the amended bill, and the propriety of the decree dismissing it is the question to be decided now. The case presented is, that on the 27th of January, 1866, Beynolds, who held the legal title of the lots in dispute, executed to appellant a bond conditioned to convey the title to him upon his payment of $100, due six months from that date, and evidenced by the promissory note of appellant given to Beynolds. Appellant was, at the date of the bond.and note, in possession of the lots, and. has remained in…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Jefcoat v. PowellMississippi Supreme Court · 1959
- Robinett v. StarlingMississippi Supreme Court · 1895
- Duffey v. KilroeMississippi Supreme Court · 1917
- Hughston v. NailMississippi Supreme Court · 1895