Jennings v. Shapira

• Decision Date: 26 February 1923
• Docket Number: 23036,22918
• Citation: 95 So. 305,131 Miss. 596
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: JENNINGS v. SHAPIRA

95 So. 305

131 Miss. 596

JENNINGS v. SHAPIRA

Nos. 22918, 23036

Supreme Court of Mississippi

February 26, 1923

1. ACCOUNT. Will compel accounting under agreement for equal division of crop under farm agreement, and will deduct expenses first.

S. may be compelled in a court of equity to account to J. for the proceeds of crops grown by S. on the land of J. under an agreement that the expense of making the crop should be borne equally by S. and J., the amount thereof to be first deducted from the proceeds of the crop, and the remainder divided between them equally, or that S. should supervise the growing of the crops and receive one-half of the net profits thereof for his services in so doing.

2. INJUNCTION. Should not lie dissolved when evidence relative to question relating to merits of controversy conflicting.

Where the dissolution of a temporary injunction depends upon the determination of a question relating to the merits of the controversy, and the evidence relative thereto introduced on the motion to dissolve is conflicting the injunction should not be dissolved, but should be retained until the cause is heard on its merits.

3. APPEAL AND ERROR. Lower court without power to proceed further with trial until appeal disposed of.

When an appeal has been granted to settle the principles of a case the court from which the appeal is taken is without power to proceed further with the trial thereof until the appeal has been disposed of.

HON. G E. WILLIAMS, Chancellor.

APPEAL from chancery court of Tallahatchie county, HON. G. E WILLIAMS, Chancellor.

Suit by E. H. Shapira, against Nellie Jennings. Decree for plaintiff, and from an order denying appeal from an order dissolving an injunction, and from a decree dismissing the bill, defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.

Decree reversed, and cause remanded.

Julian C. Wilson, for appellant.

Cutrer & Smith and D. E. Ellis, for appellee.

OPINION

SMITH, C. J.

The appellee sued the appellant at law on a promissory note for five thousand dollars executed and delivered by her to him, whereupon she sued out an injunction against him restraining him from further prosecuting the action at law, and praying for an accounting from him as to his management of a business enterprise in which they were jointly interested, and as a part of which the promissory note in question was executed.

The bill alleges, among other things: That the appellant is the owner of a plantation in Tallahatchie and Quitman counties and that the appellee farmed the plantation during the years 1919 and 1920 under an agreement with her by which he was to take charge of the land "together with the mules and implements thereon, and that the two were to make a crop in partnership, to share profits and losses equally. They were to pay the expenses of making the crops, which were to be deducted from the proceeds thereof, and then the complainant was to have seven thousand five hundred dollars as rent which was figured on a basis of about twenty dollars per acre, and thereafter they were to share the profits equally." That the promissory note on which the appellee had sued her was executed to him for money advanced her by him with which to finance...