Forsdick v. Tallahatchie County
Mississippi Supreme Court
From the chancery court of Tallahatchie county. Hon. A. H. Longino, Chancellor. Tallahatchie county, appellant, was complainant and Forsdick, appellee, defendant in the court below. The cause was tried on an agreed statement of facts, which disclosed the matters set out in the opinion of the court.
Read the full summary
From the chancery court of Tallahatchie county. Hon. A. H. Longino, Chancellor. Tallahatchie county, appellant, was complainant and Forsdick, appellee, defendant in the court below. The cause was tried on an agreed statement of facts, which disclosed the matters set out in the opinion of the court. The lease of the lands in controversy was made under the act of February 27, 1833, as amended by the act of February 27, 1836. Hutch, code, 213 and 217. The act of March 4, 1846 (Hutch, code, 230), was repealed as to Tallahatchie and several other counties by the act of 1848. Hutch, code, 243. We…
1Opinion of the CourtTerral, J.
The bill of complaint of Tallahatchie county challenges the right and title of defendant, Forsdick, to the E. and N. W. J of sec. 16, T. 23, R. 2 E. in said county (school land). The defendant set up a title or right to this land by a deed of lease thereof for ninety-nine years to Elisha West, executed on the third day of July, 1855, by A. R. Brown, president, and Majors Harris, secretary of the board of trustees of said township, and also by mesne conveyances thereof from West and his successors in the title to himself. It was agreed that Forsdick .and those under whom he claims had had…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Lambert v. StateMississippi Supreme Court · 1951
- Foster v. Jefferson CountyMississippi Supreme Court · 1947
- Yazoo & M. v. R. Co. v. Bolivar CountyMississippi Supreme Court · 1927