McMahon v. Milam Mfg. Co., 41469

• Citation: 115 So.2d 328,237 Miss. 676
• Decision Date: 09 November 1959
• Docket Number: No. 41469,41469
• Parties: Russell McMAHON et al., and Walter Sanders et al., v. MILAM MANUFACTURING COMPANY.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi

Page 328

115 So.2d 328

237 Miss. 676

Russell McMAHON et al., and Walter Sanders et al., v. MILAM MANUFACTURING COMPANY.

No. 41469.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Nov. 9, 1959.

Pyles Tucker, Jackson, Robert Cohn, Atlanta, Ga., for appellants.

Mitchell & McNutt, Tupelo, for appellee.

McGEHEE, Chief Justice.

The appellee, Milam Manufacturing Company, filed one suit against Russell McMahon and others, and another against Walter Sanders and others, in the Chancery Court of Lee County, Mississippi, for an injunction in each case against the defendants for alleged wrongful and unlawful picketing of the manufacturing plant of the appellee as complainant in each of the cases in the said chancery court. A temporary injunction was granted in each case after the filing of injunction bonds in the aggregate sum of $3,500. In due time a motion was made to dissolve the temporary injunction. The two cases were consolidated by order of the chancery court, and the cause came on for hearing on the motion to dissolve the temporary injunctions. Answers, demurrers, etc., had been filed.

Upon the hearing on the motion to dissolve the temporary injunctions it was agreed that the consolidated cases might be taken under advisement for decision in vacation, with the right of the complainant and defendants to file briefs before the chancellor. Briefs were accordingly filed.

Except for the alleged agreement for the hearing on the motions to dissolve the temporary injunctions to be treated as a final hearing on the merits, the chancellor could have rendered only an interlocutory decree on the motions. But we understand from the brief of the appellee that numerous witnesses were introduced and that considerable testimony was taken at the hearing, which lasted for a part of two days. No interlocutory or final decree has ever been rendered by the chancery court on either of the motions to dissolve the temporary injunctions. Two regular terms of the chancery court have intervened in the meantime.

The petition for the writ of certiorari asks that this Court shall issue the writ to the chancery clerk of Lee County, Mississippi, commanding and directing him to immediately prepare and certify copies of the records in said causes, including all the proceedings, pleadings, summons, writs, orders and decrees of the said Chancery Court of Lee County, Mississippi, and that we command the chancery clerk to forthwith file the said certified records with the Clerk of this Court. This we have no authority to do for the reason that no appeal has been taken in either of the cases to this Court, and no decree has been rendered from which such an appeal could be taken. The two cases are still pending on the docket of the Chancery Court of Lee County, Mississippi.

Chapter 334 of the General Laws of Mississippi of 1958 provides among other things: 'All chancellors or judges of the chancery and circuit courts of the State of Mississippi shall render their final decree on any and all matters taken under advisement by such chancellors or judges not later than six (6) months after the date when same are taken under advisement or not later than six (6) months after the date on which the chancellors or courts or judges set as the date when the final brief or memorandum of authority is required to be filed on or as to the cause taken under advisement, whichever is the latest date after the date on which the cause or case is taken under advisement.'

The appellants take the position that the Chancery Court of Lee County is now without jurisdiction or authority to render a final decree in either of the said cases. It is true that since one or more regular terms of the court have intervened, since the cases were taken under advisement for decision by the court...