Sintes v. Barber
Mississippi Supreme Court
From the chancery court of Harrison county. Hon. Nathan C. Hill, Chancellor. The appellee, Barber, was complainant and the appellant, Sintes, defendant in the court below. The opinion sufficiently states the facts of the case. It is the fault of the appellee that he had no bill of exception's in the action of ejectment, and there is no reason why he could not have availed in that action, by way of defense, of all the matters set up in his bill.
Read the full summary
From the chancery court of Harrison county. Hon. Nathan C. Hill, Chancellor. The appellee, Barber, was complainant and the appellant, Sintes, defendant in the court below. The opinion sufficiently states the facts of the case. It is the fault of the appellee that he had no bill of exception's in the action of ejectment, and there is no reason why he could not have availed in that action, by way of defense, of all the matters set up in his bill. No ground of equity jurisdiction is averred, and it is well settled that it is not competent for a court of equity to review and revise a judgment at…
1Opinion of the CourtCalhoon, J.
Mr. Barber sought in chancery to enjoin execution of a judgment in ejectment recovered by Mr. Sintes against him, on the ground that he had, when the action of ejectment was brought and tried, an equitable defense, and, equitable defenses being inadmissible in such cases, he claimed the right, after *588judgment, to invoke chancery jurisdiction, and did do so successfully below.
We do not now decide whether or not resort may be had to chancer}' after judgment in ejectment in any case merely because of an equitable defense, in view of code §§ 1677 and 1678, making judgments in such actions…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Hatchett v. ThompsonMississippi Supreme Court · 1936
- Howie v. AlfordMississippi Supreme Court · 1911
- Wood v. MorathMississippi Supreme Court · 1922
- K. C. Lumber Co. v. MossMississippi Supreme Court · 1918
- Lacombe v. HeadleyNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1918