M. Hiller & Co. v. J. R. Cotton & Co.
Mississippi Supreme Court
Appeal from the Chancery court of Amite «county. Walker, Chancellor. The opinion of the court contains a sufficient statement of the case. No case can he produced, at least in this court, which holds that voluntary absence of a party from court during the trial is per se negligence.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Chancery court of Amite «county. Walker, Chancellor. The opinion of the court contains a sufficient statement of the case. No case can he produced, at least in this court, which holds that voluntary absence of a party from court during the trial is per se negligence. Cases.may be found where the want of readiness for trial was on account of the party’s absence because he had previously omitted to do something which he ought to have done, or because of his failure to put his counsel in a state of preparation to defend; and then his absence was held to be negligence. Yeizer v.…
1Opinion of the Court
SlMRALL, J. :
A bill in chancery' was brought by M. Hiller & Co. against Joseph R. Colton & Co., to obtain a new trial in a suit at law. The equity of the bill is, that the *603demand- made by the defendants in their suit at law against the complainants was unfounded, and that complainants were prepared to make the proof of it on the trial, but that without fault or negligence on their part, they were unable to do so. The adjudications in this state have established the rigid and strict rule, that the complainant must have been diligent and active in the preparation of his defense, constant in…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Cotton v. HillerMississippi Supreme Court · 1876
- Gum Carbo Co. v. New Orleans German GazetteMississippi Supreme Court · 1907
- Armistead v. BarberMississippi Supreme Court · 1903
- Robertson v. Ætna Ins.Mississippi Supreme Court · 1924