Great Southern Box Co. of Miss. v. Barrett, 40484
Court | United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi |
Citation | 231 Miss. 101,94 So.2d 912 |
Docket Number | No. 40484,40484 |
Parties | GREAT SOUTHERN BOX COMPANY, Inc., OF MISS. and W. D. Thompson, v. Mrs. Leona BARRETT, Administratrix of the Estate of Otis Barrett, Deceased. |
Decision Date | 06 May 1957 |
Page 912
Thompson,
v.
Mrs. Leona BARRETT, Administratrix of the Estate of Otis
Barrett, Deceased.
Page 913
[231 MISS 103] Butler, Snow, O'Mara, Stevens & Cannada, Jackson, J. B. Sykes, J. W. Walker, Mendenhall, for appellants.
[231 MISS 104] Crisler, Crisler & Bowling, Jackson, Russell & Little, Magee, for appellee.
[231 MISS 106] GILLESPIE, Justice.
This appeal involves three questions of venue. Suit was brought in the Circuit Court of Simpson County by Mrs. Leona Barrett, administratrix of the estate of Otis Barrett, deceased, herein called plaintiff, against Great Southern Box Company, Inc. of Mississippi, a corporation domiciled in Rankin County, hereinafter called Box Company, and Box Company's servant, W. D. Thompson, a resident citizen and householder of Lowndes [231 MISS 107] County, and A. W. McRaney, administrator of the estate of Sam Palmer, deceased, Palmer having died a resident citizen of Simpson County where letters of administration were granted to McRaney. The Accident out of which the action arose occurred in Hinds County. The suit proceeded until plaintiff rested, at which time all defendants announced that they had no evidence. The jury returned a verdict in favor of McRaney, administrator, and against Box Company and Thompson for $35,000. Plaintiff's deceased was riding in an automobile being driven by Sam Palmer, deceased, which vehicle was traveling west and which collided with a truck belonging to Box Company and being driven by Thompson which was traveling east. The truck cut to its left into the north lane of the highway. The vehicles collided. The point of impact was three or four feet north of the center line.
The suit was filed within six months after the appointment and qualification of McRaney, administrator. McRaney, administrator, did not raise the issue that he was prematurely sued. Box company and Thompson filed a motion for change of venue in which it was contended that neither could be sued in Simpson County because neither was served with process in
Page 914
that county, the accident occurred in Hinds County, Box Company was domiciled in Rankin County, and Thompson was a resident householder of Lowndes County; that McRaney, administrator, the only resident defendant in Simpson County, was sued within four days after McRaney, administrator, was issued letters, and Section 612, Mississippi Code of 1942, provides that an administrator shall not be sued until after the expiration of six months from the date of letters of administration.The question raised by this motion is whether a codefendant of an administrator may rely on Code Section 612 on motion for change of venue when the administrator[231 MISS 108] did not object to the suit being prematurely brought. The purpose of Section 612 is to allow time to the administrator to examine and understand the condition of the estate, to provide the means of paying debts, if practicable, without suit by collection of the assets; and to be advised of any demands against it which it may be necessary to defend. Reedy v. Armistead, 31 Miss. 353. The administrator could have had the suit dismissed as to him if he had so moved, but he did not do so; therefore, the only party for whose benefit the statute was enacted waived the right to object to the suit being prematurely brought. 34 C.J.S. Executors and Administrators Sec. 729, p. 730. Codefendants of the administrator are afforded no benefit or protection by the statute and have no right to raise it.
The second motion of Box Company and Thompson for change of venue was grounded on the allegation that McRaney, administrator, the local defendant, agreed to serve as administrator of the estate of Sam Palmer at the request of some of the attorneys representing plaintiff who prepared the papers in connection with the appointment and qualification of McRaney as...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Flight Line, Inc. v. Tanksley, 89-CA-0307
...for the claim of venue. See Mississippi Power Co. v. Luter, 336 So.2d 753, 754 (Miss.1976); Great Southern Box Co. of Miss. v. Barrett, 231 Miss. 101, 109-110, 94 So.2d 912, 914-15 (1957). Put otherwise, the court at trial must give the plaintiff the benefit of the reasonable doubt, and we ......
-
Mauck v. Columbus Hotel Co., No. 97-CA-00114-SCT
...orderliness and regularity in pleadings." Thomas v. Bailey, 375 So.2d 1049, 1052 (Miss.1979) (citing Great Southern Box Co. v. Barrett, 231 Miss. 101, 94 So.2d 912 (1957)). "[J]udicial estoppel will be applied in civil cases where there is multiple litigation between the same parties and 74......
-
Hoover v. State, 07-58606
...Airport Authority, 300 So.2d 805 (Miss.1974); Sullivan v. McCallum, 231 So.2d 801 (Miss.1970); Great Southern Box Company v. Barrett, 231 Miss. 101, 94 So.2d 912 (1957). This doctrine is to be used when "the party against whom the estoppel was sought, knowingly, with full knowledge of the f......
-
Clark v. Neese, 2012–CA–00653–SCT.
...602;Banes, 352 So.2d at 815;Coral Drilling, Inc. v. Bishop, 260 So.2d 463, 466 (Miss.1972); Great Southern Box Co. of Miss. v. Barrett, 231 Miss. 101, 94 So.2d 912, 916 (Miss.1957); Mississippi State Highway Comm'n. v. West, 181 Miss. 206, 179 So. 279, 283 (Miss.1938). 22.Dockins, 849 So.2d......
-
Flight Line, Inc. v. Tanksley, 89-CA-0307
...for the claim of venue. See Mississippi Power Co. v. Luter, 336 So.2d 753, 754 (Miss.1976); Great Southern Box Co. of Miss. v. Barrett, 231 Miss. 101, 109-110, 94 So.2d 912, 914-15 (1957). Put otherwise, the court at trial must give the plaintiff the benefit of the reasonable doubt, and we ......
-
Mauck v. Columbus Hotel Co., No. 97-CA-00114-SCT
...orderliness and regularity in pleadings." Thomas v. Bailey, 375 So.2d 1049, 1052 (Miss.1979) (citing Great Southern Box Co. v. Barrett, 231 Miss. 101, 94 So.2d 912 (1957)). "[J]udicial estoppel will be applied in civil cases where there is multiple litigation between the same parties and 74......
-
Hoover v. State, 07-58606
...Airport Authority, 300 So.2d 805 (Miss.1974); Sullivan v. McCallum, 231 So.2d 801 (Miss.1970); Great Southern Box Company v. Barrett, 231 Miss. 101, 94 So.2d 912 (1957). This doctrine is to be used when "the party against whom the estoppel was sought, knowingly, with full knowledge of the f......
-
Clark v. Neese, 2012–CA–00653–SCT.
...602;Banes, 352 So.2d at 815;Coral Drilling, Inc. v. Bishop, 260 So.2d 463, 466 (Miss.1972); Great Southern Box Co. of Miss. v. Barrett, 231 Miss. 101, 94 So.2d 912, 916 (Miss.1957); Mississippi State Highway Comm'n. v. West, 181 Miss. 206, 179 So. 279, 283 (Miss.1938). 22.Dockins, 849 So.2d......