Huddleston v. Huddleston
| Decision Date | 02 April 1923 |
| Docket Number | 23061 |
| Citation | 132 Miss. 55,95 So. 674 |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Parties | HUDDLESTON v. HUDDLESTON et al |
APPEAL AND ERROE. Trial court may correct mistake in decree, where affirmed before discovery.
Where a court of equity renders a decree finding certain facts, and in entering the decree, by inadvertence and mistake, fails to decree to a party an interest which appears manifest from the facts found was a mistake; and where such error was not discovered until after appeal, affirmance, and remand, it has power to correct such error if it was mutual and not discovered before. The affirmance would not abridge such power as equity has independent jurisdiction of mistakes. Brown v. Wesson, 114 Miss. 216, 74 So. 831.
HON. V J. STRICKER, Chancellor.
APPEAL from chancery court of Yazoo county, HON. V. J. STRICKER Chancellor.
Suit by Rafe Huddleston, by next friend, against T. J. Huddleston and others. From a decree for defendants, plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded.
Reversed and remanded.
E. L Brown and Wise & Bridgeforth, for appellant.
Campbell & Campbell and Clayton D. Potter, for appellee.
Rafe Huddleston, deceased, father of the appellant, in his lifetime was a partner of T. J. Huddleston, and they together owned jointly certain real estate and personal property. The said Rafe Huddleston being in bad health desired to arrange his business so that T. J. Huddleston could carry the business on, and with that in view consulted a lawyer about making a will conferring such power upon his brother and partner, T. J. Huddleston. He was advised that a will would not bind the wife of Rafe Huddleston, but that the intention could be arranged by deeds and written agreements, but that the deeds would take effect at once instead of at the death of Rafe Huddleston. After consultation together, Rafe and T. J. Huddleston decided to make the deeds and contract, and the attorney was instructed to prepare and did prepare a deed from Rafe Huddleston to T J. Huddleston, conveying Rafe Huddleston's one-half interest in the partnership property to T. J. Huddleston and a contract from T. J. Huddleston to Rafe Huddleston, agreeing to reconvey the property under conditions set forth in such instrument. These contracts were signed and acknowledged, but the proof was conflicting as to whether there was a legal delivery of the respective papers. After the death of Rafe Huddleston, T. J. Huddleston and Maggie Huddleston, wife of Rafe Huddleston and mother of the appellant, exchanged deeds; Maggie Huddleston conveying to T. J. Huddleston her interest in certain lands and taking a deed from T. J. Huddleston to certain lands to herself for life with remainder to the appellant, Rafe Huddleston, the minor. Thereafter the said suit was filed by Rafe Huddleston, by his mother and next friend, Maggie Huddleston, asserting his interest in fee to the lands in question. As above stated the testimony was conflicting as to whether the papers drawn between Rafe Huddleston, deceased, and T. J. Huddleston were delivered, and the chancellor found on this conflict that they were not delivered, and that the deed from Ra...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fidelity & Cas. Co. of N. Y. v. State Bldg. Commission
...affirmed by this Court. The only decision referred to in the briefs which has any bearing on such right is that of Huddleston v. Huddleston, 132 Miss. 55, 95 So. 674, 675, which was a suit for the partition of land where the decree ordering the partition had limited the interest of Rafe Hud......
-
Robertson v. Aetna Ins. Co.
...upon such cases as Corry v. Buddendorff, 98 Miss. 98; Wilson v. Handsboro, 99 Miss. 252; Brown v. Wesson, 114 Miss. 216; and Huddleston v. Huddleston, 95 So. 674, and to present a case within one of the original heads of equity jurisdiction on account of a mistake of fact, as was presented ......
- Eastman, Gardner & Co. v. Sullivan
-
Huddleston v. Huddleston
...Suggestion of error. Judgment affirmed on cross-appeal, and suggestion of error overruled in other respects. For former opinion, see 132 Miss. 58, 95 So. 674. Suggestion of error OPINION COOK, J. On a former day this cause was reversed and remanded on the direct appeal, and the appellee and......