Wofford v. Ashcraft
Mississippi Supreme Court
Appeal from the chancery court of Holmes county. Hooker, Chancellor. The opinion of the court sufficiently states the case.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the chancery court of Holmes county. Hooker, Chancellor. The opinion of the court sufficiently states the case. The following errors are assigned: 1. The court erred in rendering the final decree on the state of pleadings and proof in the cause. 2. It was error to reserve $2,000 of the purchase money to meet the alleged incumbrances. 3. There is no proof to sustain the final decree or to sustain the report of the commissioner. 4. It was error to direct the payment of the entire amount of the notes to complainant and McDonald; the surplus should have been decreed to appellants. The…
1Opinion of the Court
SlMRALL, J. :
The appellants complain of the decree, because there is reserved out of the moneys which may be produced by sale of the premises, $2,000, on account of an incumbrance on part of the land, in favor of the board of supervisors of Holmes county, and a claim on another small fraction of the land claimed to be part of the estate of Susan A. Evans, and liable to be sold by her administrator for the benefit of her creditors.
Wofford and wife had sold the lands mentioned in the pleadings to Ashcraft and Owen for $2,000 cash and sixty-three bales of cotton, to weigh 500 lbs. each, to be…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Greene v. McAuleySupreme Court of Kansas · 1905
- Simon v. WilliamsMississippi Supreme Court · 1925
- Stokely v. CooperMississippi Supreme Court · 1928
- Austin Clothing Co. v. PoseyMississippi Supreme Court · 1913
- Davis v. HolifieldMississippi Supreme Court · 1967
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.