Ridgway v. Scott
| Decision Date | 19 October 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. 41418,41418 |
| Citation | 114 So.2d 844,237 Miss. 400 |
| Parties | C. R. RIDGWAY et al. v. Charlie SCOTT, Guardian of Taylor J. Peacock, Jr., Non Compos Mentis, et al. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Green, Green & Cheney, Jackson, for appellants.
Gore & Gore, Harmon W. Broom, Jackson, for appellees.
In 1955, in the Chancery Court of Hinds County, one Peacock was adjudged an incompetent suffering from paranoia. A guardian was appointed to handle his estate. Upon the exhaustion of the funds on hand the guardian was duly discharged. On May 18, 1959, Charlie Scott was appointed guardian of the estate of the said Peacock. On May 20, 1959, Charlie Scott, as such guardian, was authorized by decree to employ attorneys and file suit against appellants to recover certain mineral interests located in Simpson County which the said Peacock had conveyed to appellant Ridgway on February 11, 1957. Ridgway and his grantees filed a bond in the guardianship proceedings seeking to appeal from the decree appointing Charlie Scott as guardian of the estate of the said Peacock and the decree authorizing the said guardian to employ attorneys and prosecute the suit against appellants. Of course, Ridgway and his grantees were not parties to the guardianship proceedings.
The question here is whether the appellant, C. R. Ridgway and his grantees have the right to appeal from said decrees referred to.
If appellants have any right to appeal from the decrees in this guardianship matter, it must be found in the statutes. Sections 1147 and 1151 of the Mississippi Code of 1942 provide for appeals 'by any of the parties or legal representatives of such parties.' Ridgway and his grantees were not parties in the guardianship proceedings and have no right to appeal from the decrees entered therein. This Court said in Farmers & Merchants Bank v. Rushing, 175 Miss. 826, 167 So. 784, 785, that 'only those who are actually parties to a suit or who are privies or personal representatives may appeal.' This case was thereafter cited in Hunter v. Stanford, 198 Miss. 299, 22 So.2d 166.
Appellants argue that various proceedings hereinabove referred to were void and that they have a right to attack these proceedings by this appeal because of the purchase by Ridgway from Peacock of the mineral interests involved in the Simpson County suit. They reason that they are the personal representatives of Peacock. We are unable to agree that Ridgway and his grantees are the legal representatives of Peacock within the meaning of Section 1147, Mississippi Code of 1942. The statute limits the persons who may appeal from a decree of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Green v. Cleary Water, Sewer & Fire Dist.
...as a rule, limit the right to those who were original parties to the action or proceeding.'" Id. at 222 (quoting Ridgway v. Scott, 237 Miss. 400, 405, 114 So.2d 844, 845 (1959)). ¶ 22. Green argues that the appeal deadline in Mississippi Code Section 77-3-67 is inapplicable because the noti......
-
Belhaven Imp. Ass'n, Inc. v. City of Jackson
...However, we point out that the individual property owners should have been permitted to intervene in the action, Ridgway v. Scott, Guardian, 237 Miss. 400, 114 So.2d 844 (1959) but, since they do not appeal from the circuit court to this court, BIA cannot be heard to complain. The judgment ......
-
Chester v. Labasse (In re Estate), 2016–CA–00414–COA
...a ‘party’ to appeal, as a rule, limit the right to those who were original parties to the action or proceeding." Ridgway v. Scott , 237 Miss. 400, 405, 114 So.2d 844, 845 (1959) (citation omitted). As Ruby correctly asserts, Pamela was never a party to this matter at the trial level and onl......
-
Appeal of Public Service Com'n, U-5347 and U-5348
...a 'party' to appeal, as a rule, limit the right to those who were original parties to the action or proceeding." Ridgway v. Scott, Guardian, 237 Miss. 400, 114 So.2d 844 (1959). Appellees, then, never acquired standing to take an appeal. Thus, the chancery court had no jurisdiction of this ......