Higgins v. Haberstraw
Mississippi Supreme Court
From the chancery court, first district, of Hinds county. Hon. H. C. Conn, Chancellor. The appellants, Michael Higgins and others, were complainants, and the appellee, Lou Haberstraw, defendant, in the court below.
Read the full summary
From the chancery court, first district, of Hinds county. Hon. H. C. Conn, Chancellor. The appellants, Michael Higgins and others, were complainants, and the appellee, Lou Haberstraw, defendant, in the court below. The appellants inherited the property in controversy from their mother, Mrs. Roberts, who died leaving it incumbered by a deed of trust in favor of the appellee, executed in 1878. After the death of their mother, in 1884, the appellants, with the exception of Michael Higgins, filed a bill in the chancery court against appellee for an accounting and adjustment of equities between…
1Opinion of the CourtWhitfield, J.
This is not an effort to specifically enforce the parol agree'ment. If it were it would, of course, be obnoxious to the statute of frauds. That agreement is, in effect, not to foreclose the trust deed, under the decree, but to adopt a substituted mode of performance, now completed. The agreement is used defensively, as a shield against the assertion of title fraudulently acquired in violation of the agreement and against the right to plead the statute of limitations. The agreement operates as an equitable estoppel to prevent these things, and the appellants then—the sale and the statute of…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Lee v. HawksMississippi Supreme Court · 1891
- Perry v. McLainMississippi Supreme Court · 1888
3Cited by2 opinions
- Hasler v. West India S. S. Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1914
- Nason v. MORRISSEYMississippi Supreme Court · 1953