A. C. Seavey & Sons v. Godbold

54 So. 838, 99 Miss. 113
Mississippi Supreme Court·Decided October 15, 1910·Published·Cited by 11 cases

Opinion

Mayes, C. J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

Under the facts of this ease, Mr. Godblood has no' right to a judgment against appellants. What Godbold did amounted to a virtual appointment of the Keenes as his agents to make a sale of the cotton on which he had a landlord’s lien, and if they failed to carry out the trust thus reposed in them, and make due return of the proceeds, innocent .parties cannot he made to suffer on account thereof. Mr. Godbold testifies for himself, and is 'much to he commended for his frankness; but, taking his. own testimony, it conclusively shows that he is es-topped to deny' that the Keenes had authority to dispose of the cotton in question. Reversed and remanded.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

A. C. Seavey & Sons v. Godbold, 54 So. 838, 99 Miss. 113 (Mich. 1910).

54 So. 838 (A. C. Seavey & Sons v. Godbold) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Planters Bank & Trust Co. v. Sklar
555 So. 2d 1024 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1990)
Dickerson v. State
80 So. 2d 74 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1955)
Martin v. Leflore Bank & Trust Co.
70 So. 2d 66 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1954)
Federal Land Bank v. Southern Credit Corp.
192 So. 827 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1940)
Swift v. Aberdeen Lumber Co.
159 So. 301 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1935)
Bolivar County v. Bank of Cleveland
155 So. 176 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1934)
Williams v. Delta Grocery & Cotton Co.
132 So. 732 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1931)
Crutcher v. Commercial Bank
111 So. 569 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1927)
Quiver Gin Co. v. Looney
111 So. 107 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1927)
Judd v. Delta Grocery & Cotton Co.
98 So. 243 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1923)
Phillips v. Thomas
91 So. 420 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1922)