Mississippi College v. May, No. 41760

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
Writing for the CourtETHRIDGE; McGEHEE; LEE
Citation128 So.2d 557,241 Miss. 359
Decision Date27 March 1961
Docket NumberNo. 41760
PartiesMISSISSIPPI COLLEGE, a Corporation, et al. v. Felix MAY et al.

Page 557

128 So.2d 557
241 Miss. 359
MISSISSIPPI COLLEGE, a Corporation, et al.
v.
Felix MAY et al.
No. 41760.
Supreme Court of Mississippi.
March 27, 1961.

Page 558

[241 MISS 360] Green, Green & Cheney, Wells, Thomas & Wells, Cecil F. Travis, Jackson, Brunini, Everett, Grantham & Quin, Dent, Ward, Martin & Terry, Vicksburg, for appellants.

[241 MISS 364] Emmette P. Allen, Brookhaven, Miss., Joe T. Drake, Jr., Port Gibson, for appellees.

[241 MISS 365] ETHRIDGE, Justice.

This is the second appearance of this case. Most of the pertinent facts are set forth in the original decision. Mississippi College v. May, 1959, 235 Miss. 200, 108 So.2d 703. Accordingly, reference is made to that opinion for detailed consideration of most of the issues there and here.

The case involves application of the mortmain provisions of Miss.Constitution Sec. 270 and Miss.Code 1942, Sec. 671. The 1959 appeal resulted in a decision on practically all of the issues now raised again on this [241 MISS 366] appeal. In that respect the principle of the law of the case is applicable.

The doctrine of the law of the case is similar to that of former adjudication, relates entirely to questions of law, and is confined in its operation to subsequent proceedings in the case. Whatever is once established as the controlling legal rule of decision, between the same parties in the same case, continues to be the law of the case, so long as there is a similarity of facts. This principle expresses the practice of courts generally to refuse to reopen what has previously been decided. It is founded on public policy an the interests of orderly and consistent judicial procedure. 21 C.J.S. Courts Sec. 195; 30A Am.Jur., Judgments, Sec. 331; Goldsby v. State, Miss.1960, 123 So.2d 429, 434.

Appellants seek on this appeal to reopen the same issues which the Court has already decided in the first appeal. This we refuse to do for two reasons, because the original decision was correct, and because it is the law of the case.

The decision in 235 Miss. 200, 108 So.2d 703 affirmed the Chancery Court of Claiborne County in overruling demurrers of defendants-appellants to the bill of complaint, and remanded the cause. Answers and cross-bills were then filed, and there

Page 559

was a stipulation of certain facts not affecting the result. The final decree, from which this appeal was taken, adjudicated that appellees were the legal and equitable owners of the land. The estate of the College for ten years, with power of disposition during that time, terminated, and the full fee-simple estate is vested in appellees. Hence the decree overuled a motion to intervene, about which there will be subsequent reference, and rendered judgment for appellees against appellants for $10,500, being the value of timber cut from the land in 1953, and the additional sum of $1,813 for rents and profits in the sale by the College of a mineral lease, agricultural rent, and the sale of [241 MISS 367] locust trees, after credit was given for taxes paid by the College after 1950, when its ten-year estate terminated. The decree further rendered judgment on its cross-bill against the College in favor of Anderson-Tully Company, which purchased timber from the land, for all sums which may be expended by it in payment of the judgment, and $950 for expenses in defending this suit.

There is no merit in the federal constitutional issues raised by appellants. However, some comment should be made on two issues.

There was no error in the chancery court's overruling a motion to intervene by representative of the Union Association, the Port Gibson Baptist Church, and certain persons claiming to be beneficiaries of an alleged trust. The proposed intervention was based on the major premise that the will created a trust. We previously held to the contrary. Since appellants' argument is based on an erroneous assumption, it necessarily falls. The necessary and proper parties to this litigation were only those in court....

To continue reading

Request your trial
20 practice notes
  • Pearson v. Columbus and Greenville Ry., No. 96-CA-00984COA.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Mississippi
    • 8 Diciembre 1998
    ...It is founded on public policy and the interests of orderly and consistent judicial procedure. Id., quoting Mississippi College v. May, 241 Miss. 359, 366, 128 So.2d 557 (1961). The court noted that there was an exception to the doctrine: "rare cases where the decision is manifestly and pal......
  • Southern v. Glenn, No. 07-CA-59364
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • 3 Octubre 1990
    ...Turpentine & Rosin Co. v. Gulf Naval Stores Co., 244 Miss. 465, 142 So.2d 200 (1962); Mississippi College v. May, 241 Page 287 Miss. 359, 128 So.2d 557 (1961); Brewer v. Browning, 115 Miss. 358, 76 So. 267 The Smith County Chancellor was aware of the Texas court's determination of Glenn's d......
  • Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co. v. City of Meridian, No. 41885
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • 12 Junio 1961
    ...of the statutory power to alter or repeal such charters. Miss.Const.1890, Secs. 178, 179; Mississippi College v. May, Miss.1961, 128 So.2d 557. The rule of strict construction of such grants and a broad police power have also mitigated much of the effect of the Dartmouth College case. Wrigh......
  • Mauck v. Columbus Hotel Co., No. 97-CA-00114-SCT
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • 26 Agosto 1999
    ...1019 (Miss.1997) (quoting Simpson v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 564 So.2d 1374, 1376 (Miss.1990) (quoting Mississippi College v. May, 241 Miss. 359, 366, 128 So.2d 557, 558 (1961))). The doctrine is not a principle of substantive law but a good rule of practice and "`... is of special sign......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
20 cases
  • Pearson v. Columbus and Greenville Ry., No. 96-CA-00984COA.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Mississippi
    • 8 Diciembre 1998
    ...It is founded on public policy and the interests of orderly and consistent judicial procedure. Id., quoting Mississippi College v. May, 241 Miss. 359, 366, 128 So.2d 557 (1961). The court noted that there was an exception to the doctrine: "rare cases where the decision is manifestly and pal......
  • Southern v. Glenn, No. 07-CA-59364
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • 3 Octubre 1990
    ...Turpentine & Rosin Co. v. Gulf Naval Stores Co., 244 Miss. 465, 142 So.2d 200 (1962); Mississippi College v. May, 241 Page 287 Miss. 359, 128 So.2d 557 (1961); Brewer v. Browning, 115 Miss. 358, 76 So. 267 The Smith County Chancellor was aware of the Texas court's determination of Glenn's d......
  • Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co. v. City of Meridian, No. 41885
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • 12 Junio 1961
    ...of the statutory power to alter or repeal such charters. Miss.Const.1890, Secs. 178, 179; Mississippi College v. May, Miss.1961, 128 So.2d 557. The rule of strict construction of such grants and a broad police power have also mitigated much of the effect of the Dartmouth College case. Wrigh......
  • Mauck v. Columbus Hotel Co., No. 97-CA-00114-SCT
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • 26 Agosto 1999
    ...1019 (Miss.1997) (quoting Simpson v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 564 So.2d 1374, 1376 (Miss.1990) (quoting Mississippi College v. May, 241 Miss. 359, 366, 128 So.2d 557, 558 (1961))). The doctrine is not a principle of substantive law but a good rule of practice and "`... is of special sign......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT