North v. James
Mississippi Supreme Court
Appeal from the Chancery Court of Hinds County. Hon. E. G. Peyton, Chancellor. The facts are stated in the opinion. We insist, first, that Williams was indebted to Marshall for negroes, and his verbal agreement to pay to his children did not alter the statute of limitation.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Chancery Court of Hinds County. Hon. E. G. Peyton, Chancellor. The facts are stated in the opinion. We insist, first, that Williams was indebted to Marshall for negroes, and his verbal agreement to pay to his children did not alter the statute of limitation. The claim was barred, then, three years from the date of the transaction, to wit, 1860. But if mistaken in this, then we insist that the right of action accrued to Mrs. James on her marriage in 1866, and she is barred by the ten years statute of limitations as to trusts. See Code 1857, p. 403, art. 31, 1st clause. That she…
1Opinion of the CourtChalmers, J.
The testimony was conflicting, and the Chancellor adopted that of the complainant, which, not being improbable in itself or indeed clearly more so than that of the defendant, must be accepted as true.
The facts then are as follows : The father and mother of complainant together deposited with J. A. Williams, deceased, in 1857, seven hundred and forty dollars, which the said Williams agreed to hold until their death or marriage as trustee for complainant and her minor sister, who is now dead with no heir save complainant. The agreement was signed and acknowledged by the father of complainant…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Byrd v. ByrdMississippi Supreme Court · 1854
- Cook v. LindseyMississippi Supreme Court · 1857
3Cited by4 opinions
- Throckmorton v. PenceSupreme Court of Missouri · 1894
- Lindell Real Estate Co. v. LindellSupreme Court of Missouri · 1897
- Bliler v. BoswellWyoming Supreme Court · 1900
- Fassitt v. SeipSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1915