Osborne v. Crump
Mississippi Supreme Court
Appeal from the Chancery Court of Bolivar County. Hon. W. G. Phelps, Chancellor. 1. The answers, which are sworn to, contradict the theory and allegations of the unsworn bill. The ground for relief stated in the bill is fraud, and it was incumbent on the complainant to prove that charge before the defendants were required to offer any evidence.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Chancery Court of Bolivar County. Hon. W. G. Phelps, Chancellor. 1. The answers, which are sworn to, contradict the theory and allegations of the unsworn bill. The ground for relief stated in the bill is fraud, and it was incumbent on the complainant to prove that charge before the defendants were required to offer any evidence. Fulton v. Woodman, 54 Miss. 158. As to the a-nswers setting up affirmative matter not responsive to the bill, and the disregarding of such matter because no proof was offered to support them, we reply that when a cause is brought to a hearing on bill…
1Opinion of the CourtChalmers, J.
The case was submitted without proof, and must be decided on the pleadings, which show the following state of facts. Crump sold a plantation in Bolivar County to one Smith for fifteen thousand dollars, of which amount nine thousand dollars were paid in cash, the note of the purchaser being taken for six thousand dollars. Crump executed to Smith a deed of the land, and received back from him a trust-deed to protect the note. Smith afterwards sold the land to one Looney, who, in turn, sold to Trowbridge, deeds being executed in each case. Crump, pressing Trowbridge for the money due him on the…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Bank of Tupelo v. MotleyMississippi Supreme Court · 1921
- Austin Clothing Co. v. PoseyMississippi Supreme Court · 1913