Cochran v. Henry
Decision Date | 18 May 1914 |
Docket Number | 16498 |
Citation | 65 So. 213,107 Miss. 233 |
Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Parties | MRS. L. S. COCHRAN et al v. PATRICK HENRY |
APPEAL from the chancery court of Issaquena county. HON. E. N THOMAS, Chancellor.
Suit by Patrick Henry against Mrs. L. S. Cochran and others. From a decree overruling the demurrer to complainant's bill defendant appeals.
The facts are fully stated in the opinion of the court.
Decree reversed, and bill dismissed.
McLaurin Armistead & Brien and McLaurin & Thames, for appellant.
The attorneys for appellants filed an elaborate brief citing 3 A and E. of Law (2d Ed.), p. 337; 4 Cyc., p. 45 et seq.; Christmas v. Russell, 14 Wall. 69-84, 20 L.Ed. 762; Trist v. Child, 21 Wall. 441, 22 L.Ed. 623; Dillon v. Barnard, 21 Wall. 430, 22 L.Ed. 673; 25 Cyc. 660 et seq.; Wright v. Ellison, 1 Wall. 16, 17 L.Ed. 555; Pratt v. Hargreaves et al., 76 Miss. 955-969, 25 So. 658, 71 Am. St. Rep. 551; Jones v. Moseley, 40 Miss. 261-265, 90 Am. Dec. 327; Slocum v. Grandin, 38 N.J.Eq. 485-488; Ex parte Crafts, 28 S.C. 287, 5 S.E. 718; In re Miller's Estate, 166 Pa. 97, 31 A. 58-62; Fotheree v. Lawrence, 30 Miss. 416; Rothschild v. Hatch, 54 Miss. 554; Shirk v. Neible, 156 Ind. 66, 59 N.E. 281, 83 Am. St. Rep. 150; Matter of Snyder, 190 N.Y. 66, 82 N.E. 742, 14 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1101, 123 Am. St. Rep. 533, 13 Ann. Cas. 441; Davy v. Fidelity & Casualty Insurance Co., 78 Ohio St. 256, 85 N.E. 504, 17 L. R. A. (N. S.) 443, 125 Am. St. Rep. 694; Thompkins v. Nashville etc., Railway Co., 110 Tenn. 157, 72 S.W. 116; Huber v. Johnson, 68 Minn. 74, 70 N.W. 806, 64 Am. St. Rep. 456; Breathitt Coal, Iron & Lumber Co. v. Gregory (Ky.), 78 S.W. 148; Johnson v. Ravitch, 113 A.D. 810, 99 N.Y.S. 1059; Id., 113 A.D. 1123, 100 N.Y.S. 1123; Weller v. Jersey City, H. & P. St. Railway Co., 68 N.J.Eq. 659, 61 A. 459, 6 Ann. Cas. 442; Id., 66 N.J.Eq. 11, 57 A. 730.
Catchings & Catchings, for appellee.
The attorneys for appellee filed an elaborate brief citing Hoffman v. Vallejo, 45 Cal. 564; Harris v. Oil Mills, 78 Miss. 603, 30 So. 273; Holmes v. Evans, 129 N.Y. 140, 29 N.E. 233; Wells v. Railroad Co., 96 Miss. 193, 50 So. 628, 27 L. R. A. (N. S.) 404; 4 Cyc. p. 42 et seq.; 19 Am. and Eng. Ency., p. 13; Nutt v. Knut, 200 U.S. 12, 26 S.Ct. 216, 50 L.Ed. 348; Jeffries v. Mutual Ins. Co. of N. Y., 110 U.S. 305, 4 S.Ct. 8, 28 L.Ed. 156; Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. v. Miller, 21 Tex. Civ. App. 609, 53 S.W. 709; Walker v. Walker, 125 U.S. 342, 8 S.Ct. 929, 31 L.Ed. 769; St. L. M. & Co. v. Montana Min. Co., 171 U.S. 650, 19 S.Ct. 61, 43 L.Ed. 320; U. S. v. Trans-Mo. Freight Ass'n, 166 U.S. 290, 17 S.Ct. 540, 41 L.Ed. 1007; Ft. Worth R. Co. v. Carlock & Gillespie, 33 Tex. Civ. App. 202, 75 S.W. 931; Davis v. Webber, 66 Ark. 190, 49 S.W. 822, 45 L. R. A. 196, 74 Am. St. Rep. 81; Texas Central R. Co. v. Andrews, 28 Tex. Civ. App. 477, 67 S.W. 923; Railroad Co. v. Miller, 21 Tex. Civ. App. 609, 53 S.W. 709.
Charles C. Sanford, a white man died May 27, 1912, owning two valuable plantations situated in Sharkey and Issaquena counties and also personal property of considerable value. Some years before his death he executed his last will and testament, devising and bequeathing to Lillie Daisy Brown, a negro woman, his entire estate, real and personal, reciting in his will that it was his purpose thereby to reward a faithful servant. The testator's three sisters and a brother survived him, they being his heirs at law.
Lily Daisy Brown employed Judge Patrick Henry, an attorney at law, to represent her in and about the probating of the will. The contract of employment was reduced to writing and signed by Lily Daisy Brown, and is as follows:
LILLIE DAISY BROWN.
This instrument was properly acknowledged and duly recorded on the record of deeds of Issaquena county on the 6th day of July, 1912.
The will was in due time offered for probate. In the meantime the brother and sisters of the testator, anticipating that some will might be offered for probate, had filed with the clerk this objection to the probating of the will of C. C. Sanford, vix.:
It seems that the clerk, on June 22, 1912, admitted to probate the document purported to be the will of Sanford, but declined to issue letters testamentary to Lillie Daisy Brown, who was named therein as executrix, without bond. It appears that the objection to the probate was treated as a caveat, but no issue devisavit vel non was ever made up or tried.
On the 9th day of July, 1912, Lillie Daisy Brown executed the following deed of conveyance, viz.:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of United States v. Gex' Estate
...... action but merely of the fund when and if collected and suit. cannot be brought by the assignee upon such an assignment. . . Cochran. v. Henry, 65 So. 213; 6 C. J. S. 1140, 1142, 1055-6; 5 C. J. 845-6; Hofferberth v. Duckett, 162 N.Y.S. 166;. Nichols v. Orr, 166 P. 561; ......
-
Nebhan v. Mansour
...Co. v. Tally & Mason, 109 Miss. 393, 69 So. 186; Moseley v. Jameson, 71 Miss. 456; Zerkowsky v. Zerkowsky, 131, So. 647; Cochran v. Henry, 107 Miss. 233, 65 So. 213. adjudication of insanity is not conclusive, but only presumptive, evidence of testamentary incapacity, whether made before or......
-
Zerkowsky v. Zerkowsky
...... prohibits a settlement of the client's claim without the. attorney's consent is against public policy. . . Cochran. v. Henry, 65 So. 213, 107 Miss. 233; N. O. & N.E. R. R. Co. v. Tally & Mason, 69 So. 186, 109 Miss. 393. . . County. is not liable to ......
-
Forbes v. Edley Hixson & St. Martin, Mahoney & Assocs., Prof'l Law Corp. (In re Estate of Saint)
...65 So.3d at 842 (internal quotes omitted). 16.See Zerkowsky v. Zerkowsky, 160 Miss. 278, 131 So. 647, 648 (1931); Cochran v. Henry, 107 Miss. 233, 65 So. 213, 216 (1914). 17.Russell v. Performance Toyota, Inc., 826 So.2d 719, 725 (Miss.2002) (citing Smith v. Orkin Exterminating Co., 791 F.S......