Cases Argued and Decided in the Supreme Court of Mississippi Volume 47

Cases Argued and Decided in the Supreme Court of Mississippi Volume 47

List price: US$22.39

Currently unavailable

Add to wishlist

AbeBooks may have this title (opens in new window).

Try AbeBooks

Description

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1873 edition. Excerpt: ...APPEAL from the chancery court of Attala county. YOUNG, Chancellor. The opinion of the court contains a suflicient statement of the case. John Handy and R. C. Smith, for appellant, Insisted that the bill of complaint shows no ground for equitable relief. The bill does not admit the legal title of the plaintiff in the suit at law, against whom an injunction is prayed, and set up an equitable title paramount to such legal title. There_ is no fraud alleged, no irreparable injury to the complainant sought to be remedied. No discovery is asked in the bill, nor is any other special matter stated therein to take the case out of the general rule of equity, that "where the party has a remedy at law, he cannot come into equity unless, from circumstances not within his control, he could not avail himself of his legal remedy, nor for the assertion of a right, the existence of which is properly determinable at law." Hilliard on Injunctions, 9, 24. The allegations of the bill itself show an adequate remedy at law, and it follows, therefore, that the demurrer should have been sustained. Ib.; Leach v. Day, 27 Cal. 643; Gaines v. Nicholson, 9 How. (U. S.) 356. See Rev. Code of 1857, p. 308, art. 12; Heard v. Beard, 40 Miss. 799; Shep. Touch. 226; McAfee v. Lynch, 26 Miss. 257. Where an injunction against an ejectment suit is granted, it is invariably upon the ground of an absence of a valid legal defense to the suit in a court of law. In all such cases, the injunction bill operates as a confession of judgment in the court of law. Warwick et al. v. Norvell, 1 Leigh, 95; 1 Freem. Ch. 347; Wildey v. Bonney's Lessee, 35 Miss. 77; 10 Paige, 298; Smith's Ch. Pr. 610; 3 Dan. Ch. Pr. 281-365. Nor can the bill be sustained on...show more

Product details

  • Paperback
  • 189 x 246 x 13mm | 449g
  • Rarebooksclub.com
  • United States
  • English
  • black & white illustrations
  • 1236864743
  • 9781236864741