Hooker v. Austin
Mississippi Supreme Court
Appeal from tbe Chancery Court of Hinds county. Hon. Jno. "Watts, chancellor. Where the bill charges fraud, and the denial in the answer is not positive, but inferential only, the injunction will not be dissolved. Roberts v. Anderson, 2 Johns. Ch. Rep. 204; Nichols v. Wilson, ib. 115. A denial from information and belief not sufficient.
Read the full summary
Appeal from tbe Chancery Court of Hinds county. Hon. Jno. "Watts, chancellor. Where the bill charges fraud, and the denial in the answer is not positive, but inferential only, the injunction will not be dissolved. Roberts v. Anderson, 2 Johns. Ch. Rep. 204; Nichols v. Wilson, ib. 115. A denial from information and belief not sufficient. Apthorpe v. Oomstock, Hopkins, 140; Ward v. Yan Bokkelen, 1 Paige, 100. Where the answer admits the equity of an injunction bill, buts sets up an avoidance of it, the injunction will be continued until the hearing. McNamara v. Irwwi, 2 Dev. & Batt. 328;…
1Opinion of the CourtPbtton, J.
The complainant, O. E. Hooker, filed his bill of complaint in the Ohanceiy Court of Hinds county for the First District, against Nancy Austin, executrix of the last will and testament of William J. Austin, deceased, and J. II. Ledbetter, trustee, to enjoin the sale of a tract of land under a deed of trust.
The complainant states in his bill that on the 1st day of May, 1856, he executed his certain writing obligatory in favor of the said William J. Austin, for the sum of $4,600, and that the same was given partly for loaned money, and partly to close certain accounts and notes due the said…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Alexander v. GhiselinCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1847
- Rembert v. BrownSupreme Court of Alabama · 1850
- Doub v. BarnesCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1846
3Cited by3 opinions
- Peeples v. YatesMississippi Supreme Court · 1906
- Miller v. McDougallMississippi Supreme Court · 1870
- Richardson v. LightcapMississippi Supreme Court · 1876