Coleman v. Smith
| Decision Date | 14 February 1921 |
| Docket Number | 21302 |
| Citation | 124 Miss. 604,87 So. 7 |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Parties | COLEMAN v. SMITH |
October 1920
JUDGMENT. Decree in equity binding only on parties.
A decree in equity is binding only on the parties to the suit in which it was rendered.
APPEAL from circuit court of Alcorn county, HON. C. P. LONG, Judge.
Action by C. W. Smith against H. M. Coleman. Judgment on a directed verdict for the plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed and rendered.
Judgment reversed.
W. J Lamb, for appellant.
W. C. Sweat, for appellee.
No brief found in the record by counsel of either side.
The appellee sued the appellant on a promissory note executed by the appellant to W. R. Denton. The right of the appellee to sue on the note is set forth in the declaration as follows:
"That on the 7th day of April, 1919, the chancery court in vacation, by decree recorded in Minute Book 9, p. 156, of the chancery clerk's office of Alcorn county, subrogated this plaintiff to all of the rights of W. R. Denton in the said note and trust deed, and it thereby became the duty of the defendant to pay this complainant the amount called for by the said note with interest thereon and ten per cent. attorney's fees provided therein."
At the close of the evidence the court refused to direct a verdict for the appellant, but directed one for the appellee, and there was a judgment accordingly. It appears from the evidence that Coleman purchased from Denton an automobile for future delivery, that Smith turned over to Coleman an automobile which he then owned under an agreement that Denton should deliver to Smith the automobile purchased from him by Coleman, for which Coleman would pay Denton. Coleman then made the promissory note here sued on payable to Denton and secured it by a deed of trust on certain property and delivered both the note and the deed of trust to the clerk of the chancery court for delivery by him to Denton after the deed of trust had been recorded. When Smith called on Denton for the automobile that he agreed to sell Coleman, Denton declined to deliver it; his reason therefor not being material in view of the point on which our decision will turn. Denton also declined to accept or receive from the chancery clerk the note and deed of trust executed by Coleman. Afterwards Smith attempted by an original bill in the chancery court to force Denton to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bank of Commerce & Trust Co. v. Commissioners Tallahatchie Drainage District No. 1
... ... 11, 72 Miss. 159; Nelson v. Ill. Cent. R ... R. Co., 53 So. 619, 98 Miss. 295; Brown v ... Creegan, 62 So. 11, 105 Miss. 146; Coleman v ... Smith, 87 So. 7, 124 Miss. 604, Commercial Bank v ... Evans, 112 So. 482, 145 Miss. 643; Pyle v ... Gentry, 127 Miss. 784, 90 So. 485; ... ...
-
Hayes v. First Joint Stock Land Bank
... ... Any ... judgment or decree rendered without notice is void. [174 Miss ... Jack v ... Thompson, 41 Miss. 49; Coleman v. Smith, 124 Miss ... 604, 87 So. 7; Commercial Bank of Magee v. Evans, ... 145 Miss. 643, 112 So. 482; Canton v. Ross, 128 So. 560 ... ...
-
Samson v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of Am.
...cites the following Mississippi cases that are consistent with Zenith Radio , Vanderbilt , Martin , and Staff .¶52. In Coleman v. Smith , 124 Miss. 604, 87 So. 7, 7 (1921), this Court held that a chancery-court order requiring specific performance of a contract was not effective as to a par......
-
Riley v. Hardy
... ... is not a proceeding between the same parties over a matter ... that had been formerly adjudicated ... 34 C ... J., sec. 1165; Coleman v. Smith, 124 Miss. 604, 87 ... The ... appellees under the evidence on the motion to dissolve ... conclusively show that no damages were ... ...