Whitfield v. Evans
Mississippi Supreme Court
Appeal from the Chancery Court of Clay County. Hon. L. BRAME, Chancellor. The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court. 1. The bill is not multifarious. The suit against the administrator is entire, incapable of separation, and the sureties in both bonds have connected themselves with him so as to make them proper parties. 1 Dan.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Chancery Court of Clay County. Hon. L. BRAME, Chancellor. The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court. 1. The bill is not multifarious. The suit against the administrator is entire, incapable of separation, and the sureties in both bonds have connected themselves with him so as to make them proper parties. 1 Dan. Ch. Pr. 337, 338, and notes; Lee v. Lee, 55 Ala. 590 ; Alexander v. Mercer, 7 Ga. 549 ; McDougald v. Mattox, 17 Ga. 52 ; Powell v. Powell, 48 Cal. 235 ; Duerson v. Alsop, 27 Gratt. 229 ; McNeill v. Burton, 1 How. 510. 2. As to the jurisdiction of the…
1Opinion of the CourtSimrall, C. J.
The complainants, judgment-creditors on recoveries against Andrew J. Evans as administrator of the estate of James A. Evans, deceased, exhibited this bill in chancery against the principal and sureties in the general administration-bond, and also on the bond for the application of the proceeds of the real estate which had been sold by the administrator, alleging a devastavit by the administrator.
The first objection taken by the demurrer to the bill is that it is multifarious: in this, that it improperly joins the obli-gors on the bonds as defendants in this suit.
On account of its intrinsic…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Bank of Mississippi v. DuncanMississippi Supreme Court · 1876
- Brunini v. PeraMississippi Supreme Court · 1877
- Roberts v. StarkeMississippi Supreme Court · 1872
- Dobbins v. HalfacreMississippi Supreme Court · 1876
- Walker v. State ex rel. TaylorMississippi Supreme Court · 1876
3Cited by1 opinion
- Hayes v. National Surety Co.Mississippi Supreme Court · 1934