Comenitz v. Bank of Commerce
Mississippi Supreme Court
From the chancery court of Harrison county. Hon. Thaddeus A. Wood, Chancellor. Oomenitz and others, appellants, were complainants, and the Bank of Commerce, appellee, was defendant in the court below. From a decree sustaining a motion to dissolve an injunction, the complainant appealed to the supreme court. The Bank of Commerce brought suit against Comenitz and a number of others, the appellants, in a justice of the peace’s court.
Read the full summary
From the chancery court of Harrison county. Hon. Thaddeus A. Wood, Chancellor. Oomenitz and others, appellants, were complainants, and the Bank of Commerce, appellee, was defendant in the court below. From a decree sustaining a motion to dissolve an injunction, the complainant appealed to the supreme court. The Bank of Commerce brought suit against Comenitz and a number of others, the appellants, in a justice of the peace’s court. Service of summons was had on Comenitz on the 19th day of September, 1903, and on the other defendants, now complainants and ajipellants, in said suit, several days…
1Opinion of the CourtWhitfield, C. J.
The judgment was absolutely void as to appellant Comenitz, and, being an entirety, was void as to all the defendants. This is the well-settled Mississippi doctrine.
The decree is reversed, cause remanded, with instructions to reinstate the injunction and make it perpetual.
2Cited by7 opinions
- Bank of Philadelphia v. PoseyMississippi Supreme Court · 1922
- Boutwell v. GraysonMississippi Supreme Court · 1918
- Walker-Durr Co. v. MitchellMississippi Supreme Court · 1910
- Bank of Philadelphia v. PoseyMississippi Supreme Court · 1922
- Catlett v. DrummondMississippi Supreme Court · 1917
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.