Atkinson v. Felder

• Citation: 29 So. 767,78 Miss. 83
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
• Decision Date: 04 February 1901
• Parties: CLINTON ATKINSON ET AL. v. DEWITT C. FELDER ET AL

29 So. 767

78 Miss. 83

CLINTON ATKINSON ET AL. v. DEWITT C. FELDER ET AL

Supreme Court of Mississippi

February 4, 1901

FROM the chancery court of Amite county. HON. CLAUDE PINTARD Chancellor.

Atkinson and another, appellants, were the complainants, and Felder and wife, appellees, defendants in the court below. The object of the suit was to foreclose a mortgage on the land of Mrs. Felder, given to secure the joint note of the appellees. It was shown by way of defense that at the time of the execution of the note and mortgage Mrs. Felder was insane. This defense prevailed in the court below and the bill was dismissed. The complainants appealed, contending in the supreme court, first, that Mrs. Felder's insanity was not sufficiently established by the evidence to warrant the decree dismissing the bill, and, second, that at all events complainants were entitled to a personal decree against the husband for the debt confessedly due by him.

Decree affirmed as to Mrs. Felder, reversed as to De Witt C. Felder and case remanded.

Mc Willie & Thompson, for appellants.

Even if we be mistaken on the questions touching Mrs. Felder's sanity, by what sort of logic or reason did the chancellor conclude that the defendant, DeWitt C. Felder, who executed the notes, was not liable on them? Why should not Atkinson have been given a personal decree against the maker of the notes whose sanity was never questioned and who made no defense to the debt?

The chancery court acquired jurisdiction of the cause, and having jurisdiction for one purpose, it should have retained it for all purposes. Its final decree ought to have worked out complete and perfect justice between the parties. The court below should not have dismissed the suit, especially after the statute of limitation became a bar to an action at law on one of the notes. But without reference to this latter idea, the court had jurisdiction and should have rendered a personal decree against DeWitt C. Felder, and it erred in not doing so.

Theodore McKnight, for appellees.

OPINION

TERRAL, J.

This case was submitted to the decision of the chancery court at the December term, 1897, and it was taken under advisement by the chancellor. At the May term, 1898, of said court the chancellor rendered his decision, but at that term the appellants asked that the case be remanded to the docket for the taking of other evidence. The court overruled the motion to remand, and we think properly so ruled. Wood v. Mann, 2 Sumn. 316, 30 F. Cas. 451. We are,...