Brent v. Heard
Mississippi Supreme Court
Error to the Circuit Court of Hinds county. Hon. John Watts, judge. The only question presented by the second assignment of error, is, did the conrt below err in permitting the plaintiff below to contradict by his evidence matters stated by the defendant in his affidavit for a continuance? The defendant below was forced into trial upon the admission of the facts stated in the affidavit.
Read the full summary
Error to the Circuit Court of Hinds county. Hon. John Watts, judge. The only question presented by the second assignment of error, is, did the conrt below err in permitting the plaintiff below to contradict by his evidence matters stated by the defendant in his affidavit for a continuance? The defendant below was forced into trial upon the admission of the facts stated in the affidavit. The effect of that admission was that the matters stated were absolutely true, and not that the witness, if present, would testify that they were true. This was so decided by this court in the case of McDaniel…
1Opinion of the CourtITaNdy, C. J.
The plaintiff below sued the defendant on a promissory note for $165, payable to the plaintiff, and made by the defendant; to which action the defendant pleaded: 1, non assimypsit; and, 2, that the consideration of the note was the purchase of a mule by the defendant from the plaintiff, delivered to the defendant; andthai it was agreed between the parties at the time of the sale and of the execution of the note, that if the defendant during the ensuing winter should purchase a certain steam-mill in the same county the plaintiff would take back the mule, and give up the note; and averring…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Dominges v. StateMississippi Supreme Court · 1872