White v. Willis
| Decision Date | 15 May 1916 |
| Citation | 111 Miss. 417,71 So. 737 |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Parties | WHITE ET AL. v. WILLIS |
March 1916
APPEAL from the chancery court of Holmes county, HON. J. F. MCCOOL Chancellor.
Suit by J. H. Willis, receiver of bank of Bickens, against Mrs. F. A White and another. From a judgment overruling a demurrer to the bill, defendants appeal.
The facts are fully stated in the opinion of the court.
Decree affirmed, and cause remanded.
G. H McMorrough, for appellant.
Noel, Boothe & Pepper, for appellee.
Appellee, as receiver of the Bank of Pickens, exhibited the bill of complaint in this cause against Mrs. F. A. White and Mrs. Ora Arnold Mounger, appellants, praying for an accounting and a personal decree for the balance of an alleged indebtedness evidenced by an overdraft. There was a demurrer to the bill, the demurrer overruled, and an appeal granted to settle the principles of the case. It is sufficient to say that we have examined the bill as amended, and that the bill states a cause of action, whether an accounting is necessary or not. The chancellor has assumed jurisdiction of the case, and under the Constitution, as repeatedly announced by this court, we cannot reverse for the sole reason that the complainant has misjudged his forum. If the chancellor had not assumed jurisdiction, he would have transferred the case to the circuit court.
Aside from section 147 of the Constitution, there were at least plausible grounds for invoking the jurisdiction of equity. In this case the affairs of a defunct banking establishment are being administered in chancery. The receiver is not in position to have personal knowledge touching the various items of the deposit account which appellants had with the bank, and the bill as amended expressly charges that the defendants neither admit nor deny the correctness of the bank statement, but refuse--"to bring their passbook, checks, and other evidences of debit and credit," and "refuse to disclose even the contents thereof, said passbook and other evidences of debit and credit in possession of defendant being necessary for a true and just statement and settlement," etc,
The claim here sued for is not one evidenced by a particular writing, but is an overdraft, the balance of a deposit account extending over many years of banking business done by appellants with the Bank of Pickens.
We see no new principle of law to be decided in ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Henry, Ins. Com'r v. Donovan
...of jurisdiction of the chancery court to render the decree appealed from. Metzger v. Joseph, 111 Miss. 385, 71 So. 645; White v. Willis, 111 Miss. 417, 71 So. 737; Yazoo Delta Mortgage Co. v. Hutson, 140 Miss. 106 So. 5; Engleburg v. Tonkel, 140 Miss. 513; 106 So. 447; See, also, Federal Co......
-
Talbot & Higgins Lumber Co. v. Mcleod Lumber Co.
... ... 210, 48 So. 620; Dinsmore v ... Hardison, 111 Miss. 313, 71 So. 567; ... Metzger v. Joseph, 111 Miss. 385, 71 So ... 645; White v. Willis, 111 Miss. 417, 71 So ... 737; Cooley v. Tullos, 115 Miss. 268, 76 ... So. 263; Yazoo Delta Mortgage Co. v ... Hutson, [147 ... ...
-
Wheeler v. Cleveland State Bank
...court is section 147 of the Constitution of 1890. Federal Compress & Warehouse Co. v. Coleman, 143 Miss. 620, 109 So. 20; White v. Willis, 111 Miss. 417, 71 So. 737. appellant claims that the judgment rendered in this case was prohibited by chapter 247 of the Mississippi Laws of 1934, which......
-
Ross v. Taylor
...Bank, 74 Miss. 307, 20 So. 881; Hancock v. Dodge, 85 Miss. 228, 37 So. 711; Miss. Fire Assn. v. Stein (Miss.), 41 So. 66; White v. Willis, 111 Miss. 417, 71 So. 737; Grenada Grocery Co. v. Tatum, 74 So. Dinsmore v. Hardison, 111 Miss. 333, 71 So. 567; White et al. v. Willis, 111 Miss. 417, ......