Dickerson v. Thomas

• Decision Date: 12 January 1891
• Citation: 8 So. 465,68 Miss. 156
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: W. H. DICKERSON v. LEWIS T. THOMAS

8 So. 465

68 Miss. 156

W. H. DICKERSON v. LEWIS T. THOMAS

Supreme Court of Mississippi

January 12, 1891

FROM the chancery court of Coahoma county, HON. W. R. TRIGG Chancellor.

The appellee, Thomas, exhibited the bill in this case to cancel a conveyance of a plantation and certain personal property made by him to the appellant, Dickerson, who had been placed in possession of the property. The bill alleged that the conveyance was obtained through fraud and misrepresentation that the consideration was an indebtedness claimed to be due the defendant, but which was in great part usurious, and that complainant was entitled to large credits that had not been given. The bill prayed for an accounting and for the cancellation of the conveyance and a decree over against the defendant for a balance claimed to be due. The defendant answered denying the allegations of the bill, except as to some items of usury, which, it was claimed, would not materially change the result of an accounting between the parties. On final hearing the conveyance was vacated and a decree over for $ 12,291.12 was entered against the defendant. On appeal, this decree was reversed and the cause remanded. For a full report of the case, see 67 Miss. 777.

After pointing out various errors as against the defendant in the accounting, this court on the former appeal concluded its opinion as follows: "We affirm so much of the decree of the court as vacates the conveyance and directs the taking of the account. The specific instruction of the chancellor directing the commissioner to disallow the item of $ 614 charged on the account of 1878, and the item of April 11 1884, charged as 'invoice of goods about $ 200,' is approved. Except as specifically referred to in this opinion the matters involved are not decided. Reversed and remanded."

After the cause was remanded and before any further proceedings were had, on motion of complainant, an order was entered by the court below directing the issuance of a writ of assistance within ten days to put complainant into the immediate possession of the property described in the conveyance. The defendant excepted to the action of the court in granting this order, and prosecuted an appeal therefrom.

Reversed and remanded.

Calhoon & Green, for appellant.

We construe the former opinion of this court to mean that upon the record as then presented, the court approved the finding of the chancellor whereby the conveyance was set...