Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Penrod Drilling Co. v. Bounds

Mississippi Supreme Court

Decided May 11, 1983No. 53547Published

1Concurrence

I

Aubrey Wayne Bounds has brought an action which is not within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Chancery Court of Forrest County, Mississippi. This is so because he has failed to establish a jurisdictional fact, i.e., the existence of an indebtedness owing by one or more of eight garnishee-defendants to the in personam defendant, Penrod Drilling Company. For this reason, I suggest with deference that my colleague, Justice Hawkins, errs when he concludes that "the Chancery Court was authorized to proceed with the trial of this case". (See majority opinion at page 12).

Bounds asserts his…

2Cases cited41 opinions

  1. M'culloch v. State of MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1819
  2. Owen Equipment & Erection Co. v. KrogerSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
  3. Mitchell v. Trawler Racer, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1960
  4. Second Employers'liability CasesSupreme Court of the United States · 1912
  5. Rush v. SavchukSupreme Court of the United States · 1980

36 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API