Howcott v. Collins
Mississippi Supreme Court
On appeal from the superior court of chancery; Hon. Stephen Cocke, chancellor. 1. The decree is -wrong both in form and substance. It decrees that said Richards and Coulter, executors, &c., pay, without directing out of what fund they shall pay. This decree as it stands is against them personally, and the words executors, &c., are only descriptive. See Hite’s Executors v. Paul’s Heirs, 2 Munf. 154. For the form of a decree against an executor or administrator, see 3 Hoff.
Read the full summary
On appeal from the superior court of chancery; Hon. Stephen Cocke, chancellor. 1. The decree is -wrong both in form and substance. It decrees that said Richards and Coulter, executors, &c., pay, without directing out of what fund they shall pay. This decree as it stands is against them personally, and the words executors, &c., are only descriptive. See Hite’s Executors v. Paul’s Heirs, 2 Munf. 154. For the form of a decree against an executor or administrator, see 3 Hoff. Chan. Prac., No. 203 of Forms. 2. The interlocutory decree directs, that the commissioner shall ascertain the yearly value…
1Opinion of the CourtChief Justice Smith
This suit was commenced in the superior court of chancery. The bill states that Thomas Collins, who died intestate, was seized and possessed of considerable real estate, which descended to complainants, as his heirs at law. It also states that the appellants, Howcott and wife, intruded upon and took possession of a certain part thereof, which is particularly described, and hold possession of the same, against the consent of complainants claiming title by virtue of a sale alleged to have been made by Joseph Collins. The bill further charges, that the land in question was sold by said Joseph…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Houston v. CrutcherMississippi Supreme Court · 1856
- C. B. Foster & Co. v. Fulton Bag & Cotton MillsMississippi Supreme Court · 1930
- Shea v. Horn Real Estate & Investment Co.Indiana Court of Appeals · 1951