Selleck v. Macon Compress & Warehouse Co.
Mississippi Supreme Court
From the chancery court of Noxubee county. Hon. T. R (traiiaSi, Chancellor. This is an appeal from a decree sustaining a demurrer to a bill and dismissing tie same.' The case, as made by the bill, is as follows: Complainant is a dealer in cotton, and, as such, had stored with defendant, Macon Compress & Warehouse Company, thirty-seven bales of cotton, for which she was given warehouse receipts.
Read the full summary
From the chancery court of Noxubee county. Hon. T. R (traiiaSi, Chancellor. This is an appeal from a decree sustaining a demurrer to a bill and dismissing tie same.' The case, as made by the bill, is as follows: Complainant is a dealer in cotton, and, as such, had stored with defendant, Macon Compress & Warehouse Company, thirty-seven bales of cotton, for which she was given warehouse receipts. The said company was accustomed to receive cotton from the Mobile & Ohio Railroad Company for com-pressment and storage, and it was its custom to honor the receipts of- the railroad and deliver the…
1Opinion of the CourtWhitfield, J.
Pearce v. Twitchell, 41 Miss., 344, as explained in Meyer v. Mosler, 64 Miss., 610, does hot hold that an action of replevin can be brought in the name of one person for the use of another, but that, if it is so brought, only the rights of the nominal plaintiff can be regarded, the “name of the usee being-treated as mere surplusage.’’ If Mrs. Selleck had brought re-plevin in her own name for the use of the bank, the suit could not have been maintained. So counsel misapprehend Johnson v. White., 13 Smed. & M., 584; and Bailey v. Colby, 66 Am. Dec., 752, is not in point here. The bank alone…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Meyer v. Mosler ex rel. WarnerMississippi Supreme Court · 1887
- Boyd v. SwingMississippi Supreme Court · 1859
- Pearce v. TwichellMississippi Supreme Court · 1867
- Mortimore v. RagsdaleMississippi Supreme Court · 1884
3Cited by1 opinion
- Carter v. KimbroughMississippi Supreme Court · 1920