Coleman v. Rowe
Mississippi Supreme Court
APPEAL from Chancery. The bill charged that in March, 1837, the appellant bought of appellee, Rowe, a certain tract of land, known as the north half of the south-east quarter, the east half of the north-west quarter, and the south half of the west half of the north-west quarter of section twenty-six, and the east half of the south-west quarter and the north half of the south-east quarter of section twenty-seven, all in township eleven, range six, east, containing three…
Read the full summary
APPEAL from Chancery. The bill charged that in March, 1837, the appellant bought of appellee, Rowe, a certain tract of land, known as the north half of the south-east quarter, the east half of the north-west quarter, and the south half of the west half of the north-west quarter of section twenty-six, and the east half of the south-west quarter and the north half of the south-east quarter of section twenty-seven, all in township eleven, range six, east, containing three hundred and sixty acres, for the sum of seven thousand and two hundred dollars, of which two thousand and four hundred was to…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Thottek
The exhibits referred to in the answer fully support the statement of a regular derivation of title by appellee, from the general government, to all the lands sold by this contract to appellant. Sundry depositions were taken to prove the paramount title *466which is stated to be in Tishoma; but no question is made of appellee’s title to the residue. The preponderance of the proof is against the ailedged insolvency of the appellee. Upon this statement of the case, the chancellor dissolved the injunction.
1 ' It is important, in considering the question of the appellant’s title to relief in this…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Inhabitants of Barkhamsted v. CaseSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1825
- Wallingford v. HearlMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1819
- Saunders v. Beal's administratorCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1816