Weiner v. Dickerson
Mississippi Supreme Court
From the chancery court of Quitman county. IIon. A. Mo. Ktmbrougi-i, Chancellor. Weiner, appellant, was complainant in the court below; Dickerson and others, appellees, were defendants there. From a decree in defendant’s favor the complainant appealed to the supreme court. The opinion states the case.
Read the full summary
From the chancery court of Quitman county. IIon. A. Mo. Ktmbrougi-i, Chancellor. Weiner, appellant, was complainant in the court below; Dickerson and others, appellees, were defendants there. From a decree in defendant’s favor the complainant appealed to the supreme court. The opinion states the case. The court’s attention is called to a careful examination in the record of what purports to be a list of the lands held by the state and furnished the chancery court clerk under the act of 1890 for the sale by the tax collector under that act, and it will be seen that said list is not…
1Opinion of the Court
Calhoon, L,
delivered, the opinion of the court.
This controversy is over the title to lot 4, section 10, township 29, range 2 west, in Quitman county. Other lands are embraced in the bill, but the decree in chancery below is apealed from only in so far as it affects this particular lot 4 in section 10.
The claim of Weiner, the complainant in the proceeding, is clearly just, and not disputed, unless the defandant had a good title by purchase at sheriff’s sale pursuant to chapter 5, page 16, acts 1890. That act provides that the auditor should prepare a correct list of state tax land in every…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Lusk v. SealMississippi Supreme Court · 1922
- Lusk v. SealMississippi Supreme Court · 1922