McBride v. Burgin
| Decision Date | 15 June 1926 |
| Docket Number | 25584 |
| Citation | 108 So. 811,143 Miss. 596 |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Parties | MCBRIDE et al. v. BURGIN. [*] |
APPEAL AND ERROR.
Where record does not disclose value of lands awarded to appellee in ejectment action, case will. be remanded to lower court for ascertainment of value of real estate for allowance of five percent, damages under Code 1906, sections 4926, 4927 (Hemingway's Code, sections 3202, 3203).
On motion to correct judgment. Motion sustained.
For former opinion, see 108 So. 148.
Motion sustained.
The motion in this case is that the case be remanded to the lower court in order that a writ of inquiry be issued by that court to ascertain the value of the real estate, the possession of which was adjudged to the appellee, Burgin, in the lower court, and which was affirmed here, so that when said value is ascertained the appellee may have the five per cent damages allowed him upon the appeal in this case under sections 4926 and 4927 of the Mississippi Code of 1906 (Hemingway's Code, sections 3202 and 3203).
It appears that this record does not disclose the value of the lands awarded to appellee, Burgin, in an ejectment action at a former day of this term of this court, and it being clear that he is entitled to five per cent damages on the value of the real estate, the motion to correct the judgment is sustained so that we shall remand the case to the lower court in order that said court by writ of inquiry may ascertain the value of the real estate involved in this controversy, and that the judgment of this court is that the appellee, Burgin, shall have and recover of McBride and others, and the sureties on their bond, the amount of five per cent damages on the value of the property thus ascertained by the writ of inquiry in the lower court.
Motion sustained.
---------
Notes:
[*]Corpus Juris-Cyc. References: Appeal and Error, 4CJ, p. 1117, n. 66.
---------
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fulgham v. Burnett
...elapsed and the statutory period had been completed. We have no complaint or criticism to make as to the soundness of McBride v. Burgin, 143 Miss. 596, 108 So. 148, decided by Justice MCGOWEN. The real question presented for the court's decision is: can the appellees raise the bona-fide pur......
-
Merritt v. Magnolia Federal Bank for Sav.
...judgment would have been for possession. McBride v. Burgin, 142 Miss. 859, 108 So. 148, motion to correct judgment sustained by 143 Miss. 596, 108 So. 811 (1926). And, insofar as this record shows, Mr. and Mrs. McInnis never had their possession disturbed in any The bank in its motion cites......
-
Peoples Bank and Trust Co. v. L. & T. Developers, Inc.
...Chancery Court for a factual determination of the value 5 of each of the three tracts of land at this time. See McBride v. Burgin, 143 Miss. 596, 596-597, 108 So. 811 (1926); Hart v. Catoe, 393 So.2d 1346, 1347 The judgment of the Court on the instant motion is that L & T Developers, Inc. s......
-
Hart v. Catoe, 52244
...presented is how to arrive at such value in order to determine the five percent damages. This issue was addressed in McBride v. Burgin, 143 Miss. 596, 108 So. 811 (1926), where the Court "The motion in this case is that the case be remanded to the lower court in order that a writ of inquiry......