Smith v. Kirkland

Decision Date03 December 1906
CitationSmith v. Kirkland, 89 Miss. 647, 42 So. 285 (Miss. 1906)
CourtMississippi Supreme Court
PartiesAMANDA SMITH v. SAMUEL H. KIRKLAND

November 1906

FROM the chancery court of Scott county, HON. JAMES L. MCCASKILL Chancellor.

Mrs Smith, the appellant, was complainant in the court below Kirkland, the appellee, was defendant there. From a decree in defendant's favor the complainant appealed to the supreme court.

The object of the suit was to cancel defendant's claim of title to the land in controversy. Defendant held the land under a trustee's deed made in pursuance of a sale foreclosing a deed of trust; the trustee's deed recited that the notices provided for in the trust deed had been duly given.

Complainant, who claimed by inheritance from the grantor in the deed of trust, did not offer evidence controverting the recital of the trustee's deed on the subject of notice, but the defendant offered testimony on that subject and failed to prove that the notices were duly posted, as required by the deed of trust, at three public places in the county; in fact, the testimony tended to show that only one notice of the sale was posted.

Watkins & Watkins, and Robert B. Ricketts, for appellant.

O. R. Singleton, and McWillie & Thompson, for appellee.

OPINION

WHITFIELD, C. J.

If app...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
9 cases
  • Southeastern Express Co. v. Namie
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • May 23, 1938
    ... ... the proof in the place thereof ... An ... illustration of this may be found in Smith v ... Kirkland, 89 Miss. 647, 42 So. 285. A trustee's sale ... of land is presumed to have been made upon due notice, as ... required by the ... ...
  • Melchor v. Casey
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • May 27, 1935
    ... ... Wynne, 127 Miss ... 773, 90 So. 482; Graham v. Fitz, 53 Miss. 307; ... Enochs v. Miller, 60 Miss. 19; McCaughn v ... Young, 85 Miss. 278; Smith v. Kirkland, 89 ... Miss. 647, 42 So. 285; Jones v. Frank, 123 Miss ... 280, 85 So. 310; Burks v. Moody, 141 Miss. 370, 106 So.528 ... ...
  • Hamiel v. Rice
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • September 28, 1936
    ...this presumption, then the appellant may be in a different position, but this is not the case. 22 C. J., 128, sec. 68B; Smith v. Kirkland, 42 So. 285. cannot subscribe to the inference of the appellant contending that the act of the State Board of Education in allocating the sum of twenty t......
  • Johnson v. Federal Land Bank of New Orleans
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • May 4, 1936
    ...v. Watson, 69 So. 1009, 110 Miss. 86; Planters Co. v. Braxton, 120 Miss. 470; 41 C. J., pages 994 and 995, sec. 1449; Smith v. Kirkland, 89 Miss. 647, 42 So. 285. It not necessary in the case at bar for the defendants, appellants here, to offer any proof as to the invalidity of the sale sin......
  • Get Started for Free