Rush v. Pearson
Mississippi Supreme Court
Q?rom the chancery court of Tate county. ■Hon. Isaac T. Blount, Chancellor. Eush, the appellant was complainant in the court below; and 'Pearson, the appellee, and A. W. Sliands, as cestui que trust and trustee respectively in a deed of trust executed by Eush, were defendants there. From a decree unfavorable to the complainant he appealed to the supreme court.
Read the full summary
Q?rom the chancery court of Tate county. ■Hon. Isaac T. Blount, Chancellor. Eush, the appellant was complainant in the court below; and 'Pearson, the appellee, and A. W. Sliands, as cestui que trust and trustee respectively in a deed of trust executed by Eush, were defendants there. From a decree unfavorable to the complainant he appealed to the supreme court. The appellant, Eush, sued out injunction to restrain the appellees from selling certain real and personal property under a deed of trust which Eush had previously executed to Shands as trustee for the use of the appellee, Pearson. The…
1Opinion of the CourtMayes, J.
It was necessary for Rush to tender into court the amount admitted to be due, or pay same, before he could maintain his injunction. Purvis v. Woodward, 78 Miss., 922, 29 South., 917; Crittenden v. Ragan, 89 Miss., 185, 42 South., 281; Lewis v. Boguechitto, 76 Miss., 356, 24 South., 875; M. & O. Ry. Co. v. Moseley, 52 Miss., 127. We think the decree of the chancery court was correct. The decree is affirmed and the cause remanded, with leave to complainant to pay the amount admitted to be due in ten days after mandate filed; otherwise, the injunction stands dissolved.
Affirmed and remanded.
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Purvis v. WoodwardMississippi Supreme Court · 1901
- Mobile & Ohio Railroad v. MoseleyMississippi Supreme Court · 1876
- Ross v. QuickMississippi Supreme Court · 1906
- Crittenden v. RaganMississippi Supreme Court · 1906
- Lewis v. Village of BoguechittoMississippi Supreme Court · 1898