Gambrell Lumber Co. v. Saratoga Lumber Co.
Mississippi Supreme Court
From the ckaucery court of Kankin county. Hon. James L. McCaskill, Chancellor. The Saratoga Lumber Company, the appellee, a corporation, was the complainant in the court below; the Gambrell Lumber Company, also a corporation, the appellant, was defendant there. The defendant, although duly summoned, failed to appear in the court below.
Read the full summary
From the ckaucery court of Kankin county. Hon. James L. McCaskill, Chancellor. The Saratoga Lumber Company, the appellee, a corporation, was the complainant in the court below; the Gambrell Lumber Company, also a corporation, the appellant, was defendant there. The defendant, although duly summoned, failed to appear in the court below. A decree pro confesso was taken against it, and a final decree, predicated thereof, was rendered in complainant’s favor, from which the defendant appealed to. the supreme court. The facts touching the contents of the bill of complaint are stated in the opinion…
1Opinion of the Court
Truly, L,
delivered the opinion of the court.. Notwithstanding the fact that the decree pro confesso and judgment final were" taken in the court below by reason of the default of the defendant in failing to file an answer .to the.bill of complaint, we find ourselves unable to sustain the decree ren*780dered in this cause. The bill of complaint states no cause of action. It cannot be saved by the contention made by the counsel for appellee that it is sanctioned by Code 1892, § 499. The right to confirm titles is granted by that section only to “the owner in possession of any land, or the owner…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Cook v. FrileyMississippi Supreme Court · 1883
3Cited by4 opinions
- Longmire v. MarsMississippi Supreme Court · 1920
- Brooks-Scanlon Co. v. StognerMississippi Supreme Court · 1917
- Lusk v. SealMississippi Supreme Court · 1922
- Church of the Living God v. CurryMississippi Supreme Court · 1948