Davis v. Davis, 37701
| Decision Date | 04 December 1950 |
| Docket Number | No. 37701,37701 |
| Citation | 210 Miss. 182,49 So.2d 242 |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Parties | DAVIS et al. v. DAVIS et al. |
O. F. & J. O. Moss, Lucedale, for appellants.
E. C. Fishel, Hattiesburg, W. M. Hutto, Waynesboro, for appellees.
Appellees brought suit to quiet and confirm their title to 200 acres of land in Wayne County. Appellants filed an answer and cross-bill denying that the deed in question had ever been delivered and claiming that certain notes for balance due on the purchase price had never been paid and further claiming that appellees were indebted to them for certain rents and profits for all of which an accounting was sought. Upon a hearing of the first appeal we held that appellees were entitled to a confirmation of their title and affirmed the lower court in that respect, but because of the confusion and conflict in the record we were unable to harmonize the same with that portion of the decree which adjudged a balance due of $164.22 and in that respect the decree was reversed and the cause remanded with direction that a correct account be taken and stated with the right of either party to file such other pleadings or amended pleadings as may be right and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case. Davis v. Davis, 205 Miss. 794, 39 So.2d 486, 40 So.2d 156.
Upon remanded to the lower court the appellees amended their answer to the cross-bill and pleaded the statute of limitation as a bar to the notes in question and further pleaded, in the alternative, estoppel against some of appellants so as to prohibit them from sharing in any recovery of a balance due on the notes. At the hearing appellants made an oral motion to strike that part of the amended answer to the cross-bill pertaining to appellees' plea of the statute of limitation. Appellants offered in evidence a portion of the record of the first trial and appellees offered the entire record of the first trial and both parties rested on the motion. The motion was overruled. Thereupon appellants declined to plead further and declined to offer any evidence and the trial court rendered a decree in favor of appellees.
The sole contention on this appeal is that the appellees are not entitled to plead the statute of limitation in a court of equity. The case of Wall v. Harris, 90 Miss. 671, 44 So. 36, is illustrative of the authorities upon which appellants rely but, in our opinion, it has no application here. It must be remembered that in the case at bar the appellees did not invoke the aid of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Devers
...upon an assault, of course it waived this defense. W. T. Raleigh Co. v. Fortenberry, 133 Miss. 467, 97 So. 722 (1923); Davis v. Davis, 210 Miss. 182, 49 So.2d 242 (1950); Davis v. Bar, 250 Miss. 54, 157 So.2d 505 At the conclusion of the plaintiff's case, however, when the precise point was......
-
Valley Cement Industries, Inc. v. Midco Equipment Co., 76-3370
...505, nor any inequitable attempt to use the statute of limitations offensively to obtain an "unconscionable advantage," Davis v. Davis, Miss.1950, 49 So.2d 242, 243. With respect to the appellant's exhortation that this court recognize that Euclid "received Valley's stock for nothing," we c......