Smith v. Kirkland
Mississippi Supreme Court
From the chancery court of Scott county. Hon. James L. McOaskill, Chancellor. Mrs. Smith, the appellant, was complainant in the court below; Kirkland, the appellee, was defendant there. From a decree in defendant’s favor the complainant appealed to the supreme court. The object of the suit was to cancel defendant’s claim of title to the land in controversy.
Read the full summary
From the chancery court of Scott county. Hon. James L. McOaskill, Chancellor. Mrs. Smith, the appellant, was complainant in the court below; Kirkland, the appellee, was defendant there. From a decree in defendant’s favor the complainant appealed to the supreme court. The object of the suit was to cancel defendant’s claim of title to the land in controversy. Defendant held the land under a trustee’s deed made in pursuance, of a sale foreclosing a deed of trust; the trustee’s deed recited that the notices proyided for in the trust deed had been duly given. Complainant, who claimed by…
1Opinion of the CourtWhitfield, C. J.
If appellees had relied in the court below on the legal presumption arising from the execution of the trustee’s deed that notice had been properly posted, the case might possibly be affirmed. But appellee, not choosing to do this, introduced testimony for the purpose of showing that the notices had been duly posted according to the provisions in the trust instrument, which testimony clearly, proves the contrary — that they had not been so posted. We have, therefore, a case in which the presumption is out of-the way, and the decision must turn on the evidence; and on the evidence there is a…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Southeastern Express Co. v. NamieMississippi Supreme Court · 1938
- McSwain v. YoungMississippi Supreme Court · 1916