Hooker v. McIntosh
Mississippi Supreme Court
From the circuit court of Lawrence county. ■ Hon. William P. Cassedy, Judge. McIntosh and Newsom, the appellees, were the plaintiffs in the court below; Hooker and another, appellants, were defendants there.
Read the full summary
From the circuit court of Lawrence county. ■ Hon. William P. Cassedy, Judge. McIntosh and Newsom, the appellees, were the plaintiffs in the court below; Hooker and another, appellants, were defendants there. The suit was an action on two promissory notes, each for one hundred dollars, executed by Hooker and a surety, appellants, payable to Newsom, one of the appellees, who, after the maturity of the notes but before suit began, invested McIntosh, his coplaintiff, with an undivided one-half interest in them. Newsom, the payee in the notes, had taken the preliminary steps to enter a piece of…
1Opinion of the CourtWoods, C. J.
The arrangement between Newsom and Hooker whereby the former agreed with the latter to relinquish his claim to and abandon the land, and to cancel his entry at the land office, in order that the latter might enter the land and ultimately secure a patent therefor, was not illegal, and constituted a sufficient consideration for Hooker’s notes given to Newsom. It was simply the relinquishment of Newsom’s possessory right in the premises, with the improvements made thereon by him. The authorities on the subject are collated in the 19 Am. & Eng. Ene. L., 323, 32i and notes, and 332-331, with notes.
2Cited by2 opinions
- Dohr v. WolfgangWisconsin Supreme Court · 1912
- Holloway v. MillerMississippi Supreme Court · 1904