Armistead v. Barber
Mississippi Supreme Court
Erom the chancery court of Newton county. Hon. Thomas Keith, Special Chancellor. Armistead and others, appellants, were complainants in the court below; Barber and others, appellees, were defendants there. The proceeding was by a bill of review.
Read the full summary
Erom the chancery court of Newton county. Hon. Thomas Keith, Special Chancellor. Armistead and others, appellants, were complainants in the court below; Barber and others, appellees, were defendants there. The proceeding was by a bill of review. In 1889 Barber and others filed a bill in the chancery court of Newton county against one Armistead and his four infant children, praying the sale, for partition of the proceeds, of certain lands in the said county, owned by complainants and defendants in said suit as tenants in common. A decree was rendered ordering the land sold and the proceeds…
1Opinion of the CourtCalhoon, J.
There is an appeal from a decree sustaining a demurrer to a bill of review and dismissing the bill, and the court was right in sustaining the demurrer on some of the grounds. The bill does not, as it should do, set forth the interests of all the parties; it does not, as it should do, join as parties some who were parties to the proceedings sought to be reviewed, nor give any reason for their nonjoinder; and it does not, as it should do, *793show why persons who are not parties to the original proceedings are made defendants to it. We expressly decline now to decide the other questions raised on…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Kimbrough v. CurtisMississippi Supreme Court · 1874
- M. Hiller & Co. v. J. R. Cotton & Co.Mississippi Supreme Court · 1873
3Cited by1 opinion
- Imbragulio v. HebertMississippi Supreme Court · 1934