Hamilton v. Halpin
Mississippi Supreme Court
From the chancery court of Issaquena county. Hon. W. E. Trigg, Chancellor. In July, 1878, the appellants, Peter Hamilton and eight others, united in the purchase of a large tract of land, then unimproved, and for the purchase-money executed five joint and several promissory notes, due respectively January 1, 1880, and annually thereafter. By the deed the land was conveyed to them jointly.
Read the full summary
From the chancery court of Issaquena county. Hon. W. E. Trigg, Chancellor. In July, 1878, the appellants, Peter Hamilton and eight others, united in the purchase of a large tract of land, then unimproved, and for the purchase-money executed five joint and several promissory notes, due respectively January 1, 1880, and annually thereafter. By the deed the land was conveyed to them jointly. Immediately thereafter they went into possession of the land, and each began the clearing and cultivation of a separate portion. In the matter of the purchase and improvement the parties acted under an…
1Opinion of the CourtWoods, C. J.
1. The position of appellants’ counsel to the effect that the taking possession of the property by the trustee was a condition precedent, is, we think, indefensible. The trust-deed declares that “ it shall be the duty of the party of the third part herein, at the request of the holder of said note, to take into his possession all the property described herein,” etc. Clearly the case falls within the rule prescribed in Tyler v. Herring, 67 Miss. 169, and in Vaughn v. Powell, 65 Ib. 401. The trustee, by the provision quoted, had the right to take possession of the property, at the request of…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Tyler v. HerringMississippi Supreme Court · 1889
- Deans v. RobertsonMississippi Supreme Court · 1886
3Cited by2 opinions
- Williams v. DreyfusMississippi Supreme Court · 1901
- Cromartie v. WeaverSupreme Court of Georgia · 1912