Portwood v. Feld

• Decision Date: 29 April 1895
• Parties: P. B. PORTWOOD ET AL. v. FELD & SILVERBERG ET AL
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court

17 So. 373

72 Miss. 542

P. B. PORTWOOD ET AL. v. FELD & SILVERBERG ET AL

Supreme Court of Mississippi

April 29, 1895

FROM the chancery court of Leflore county, HON. A. H. LONGINO Chancellor.

In a certain suit in the chancery court of Leflore county, in which Feld & Silverberg, complainants, had procured an injunction to be issued against P. B. Portwood and others enjoining the issuance of an execution on a judgment, a decree was rendered dissolving the injunction. On the hearing, counsel for complainants gave notice of a certain amendment to the bill which they wished to make before entry of the decree. The amendment was not at once put in writing but the substance of it was stated to the court, and leave to make the amendment was denied. Counsel for complainants stated that it would require the exhibiting of certain records which were too lengthy to be copied at that time, and asked that they might be considered as offered, and this was agreed to. The court had decided against complainants on the ground that their cause of action was barred, and merely asked complainants' counsel if the proposed amendment affected this question, and was answered in the negative. The decree dismissing the bill was entered, and an appeal taken. When the transcript for appeal was being prepared, counsel for complainants insisted on having incorporated therein the matters offered by way of amendment to the bill, and which they had, in the meantime, reduced to writing. There was however, a disagreement between counsel as to whether the amendment, as written and presented, corresponded with that the substance of which had been stated orally to the court and acted upon. In this condition of things, defendants filed an original bill setting up the facts above stated, and asked that the chancery clerk be enjoined from incorporating in the transcript the paper and the exhibits constituting the proposed amendment. The answer of defendants, complainants in the original suit, averred that the agreement, as written was substantially the same as that acted upon by the court, and denied all charges of bad faith in the matter of the preparation of the record. Evidence was taken, and the cause heard by the chancellor in vacation on a motion to dissolve the injunction. The motion was sustained, and a decree rendered against complainants dissolving the injunction and awarding $ 50 attorney's fees, as damages on the injunction bond. From this decree complainants appeal.

Decree affirmed.

Coleman & Somerville, for appellants.

It will not do to say this court acquired exclusive jurisdiction by the execution of the appeal bond. Inferior courts retain jurisdiction for many purposes, as has been said in many cases unnecessary to cite, and, to preserve the status quo they must, of necessity, decide what is and what is...