Martin v. Newell
| Decision Date | 26 November 1945 |
| Docket Number | 35963. |
| Citation | 198 Miss. 809,23 So.2d 796 |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Parties | MARTIN v. NEWELL et al. |
A. T. L. Watkins, of New Augusta, for appellant.
E C. Fishel, of Hattiesburg, for appellee.
This case comes here from the Chancery Court of Perry County wherein appellant was denied the relief sought--the final decree sustaining demurrers by appellees and dismissing the original and amended bills of complaint.
The facts of the case, as they are recited in the original bill and admitted by demurrers, are that appellant appeared before the county board of supervisors at its March 1937 term and contracted to buy certain lands at the disposal of the county, for the sum of nine hundred dollars; one hundred and fifty dollars cash, and the balance on the credit to be secured by a lien on the land. An order was drawn setting out the contract, which was to have been entered on the minutes of the board, but through inadvertence or accident or for some other reason it was not done. In other words, there is no order on the minutes setting out the contract. The appellant, however, at once went into possession of a dwelling house on the premises, which has been in his possession ever since. The attorney of the board was instructed to draw up the papers, but, in spite of repeated requests by appellant, he failed to do so.
The appellant owned and operated a sawmill, and by an oral agreement with the board he sold lumber to the county, the invoices for which were to be credited to the balance due from appellant to the county. There were twenty-nine such invoices, amounting to the total sum of $838.95. There was no entry on the minutes of the board of such agreement, but there were some entries referring to allowance of some invoices. These minutes were not exhibited with the original bill, but were merely referred to by book and page number. The invoices were exhibited.
The State Highway Commission acquired a right of way through the lands involved, some years after appellant's contract aforesaid, paying for same the sum of $375 in cash, to the county. However, the Commission required both the county and appellant to execute conveyances of this right of way to it. It is averred in the pleading of appellant that this amount added to the lumber invoices caused an overpayment to the county herein of $315.95. He says in his bill that the county instructed its attorney then to prepare a deed to appellant which the attorney again failed to do. So that appellant never has gotten a deed to this land.
In 1943, the board, composed of new personnel, undertook to sell same land, or a part thereof described, to M. L. Newell by quitclaim deed, for $400, and delivered a deed to him. The board had also undertaken to convey a certain part thereof to Beaumont Veneer Company, which cut the timber therefrom. The prayer of the bill was that appellant be declared the true owner, and for specific performance of his contract of purchase with the board; that the deeds to the Veneer Company and Newell be cancelled as clouds on his title; discovery of timber cut; or, in the alternative, he be awarded a money judgment against Perry County for $1,213.95.
Demurrers were interposed, which confessed the allegations of the original and amended bills supra; and a plea of limitations of three years to the demand for a money judgment was filed by appellee. The demurrers were sustained, appellant declined to plead further, and the original and amended bills were dismissed. An interlocutory decree recited that appellant had, in open court, confessed the plea of the statute of limitations of three years against the demand for a money judgment.
There were no points made of multifariousness or the joinder in single demurrers of both general and special grounds.
The statute with reference to method of contracting for conveyance of real estate generally by boards of supervisors is Section 2892, Code 1942. The validity of the contract requires...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bruner v. University of Southern Mississippi
...Community Hospital, 352 So.2d 795, 797 (Miss.1977). See also, Burt v. Calhoun, 231 So.2d 496, 499 (Miss.1970); Martin v. Newell, 198 Miss. 809, 815, 23 So.2d 796, 797 (1945); Jackson Equipment & Service Co. v. Dunlop, 172 Miss. 752, 766, 160 So. 734, 737 (1935); Pearl Realty Co. v. State Hi......
-
Sparks v. City of Booneville, Mississippi, Civil Action No. 1:99CV186-B-D (N.D. Miss. 8/17/2000), Civil Action No. 1:99CV186-B-D.
...1920). If the minutes do not reflect what is required, the private party can insist that a correction be entered. Martin v. Newell, 198 Miss. 809, 815, 23 So.2d 796 (1945); JLG Concrete Prods. Co. v. City of Grenada, 722 So.2d at 1287. The minutes of the June 2, 1998 meeting of the City's M......
-
Nichols v. Patterson
...(quoting Smith v. Board of Supervisors of Tallahatchie County, 124 Miss. 36, 41, 86 So. 707, 709 (1920)). See also Martin v. Newell, 198 Miss. 809, 23 So.2d 796 (1945). Because of the requirement of documentation duly noted on the minutes, the Auditor's exception to the City Beautiful Commi......
-
KPMG, LLP v. Singing River Health Sys., 2017-CA-01047-SCT
...v. Ford , 213 Miss. 49, 56 So.2d 23 (1952) (a board's contracts are evidenced by the entries on their minutes); Martin v. Newell , 198 Miss. 809, 23 So.2d 796 (1945) (validity of the contract required an entry of an order on the minutes of the board); Smith Cty. v. Mangum , 127 Miss. 192, 8......