Burns v. Arrington

Mississippi Supreme Court

Burns v. Arrington

199 So. 2d 625, 1967 Miss. LEXIS 1305

CourtMississippi Supreme Court

DecidedJune 5, 1967

DocketNo. 44474

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 199 So. 2d 625 (Burns v. Arrington) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Mississippi Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Burns v. Arrington, 199 So. 2d 625, 1967 Miss. LEXIS 1305 (Mich. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

GILLESPIE, Presiding Justice:

This is the second appearance of this suit in this Court. A former interlocutory appeal was dismissed because it was improvidently granted. Burns v. Arrington, 251 Miss. 247, 169 So.2d 831 (1964). Thereafter the case was tried on its merits, and the trial court held that the deed to appellant was given to secure money advanced to Pink Arrington for the purchase price of the land involved. Complainants below and appellees here are the heirs at law of Pink Arrington. After a careful consideration of the pleadings and proof, we are of the opinion that the chancellor was justified in finding that the deed was in fact a deed of trust given to secure the payment of funds advanced for the purchase price of the land. We find no reversible error. The decree should be and it is hereby affirmed.

Affirmed.

RODGERS, PATTERSON, SMITH and ROBERTSON, JJ., concur.

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

GILLESPIE, Presiding Justice:

This is the second appearance of this suit in this Court. A former interlocutory appeal was dismissed because it was improvidently granted. Burns v. Arrington, 251 Miss. 247, 169 So.2d 831 (1964). Thereafter the case was tried on its merits, and the trial court held that the deed to appellant was given to secure money advanced to Pink Arrington for the purchase price of the land involved. Complainants below and appellees here are the heirs at law of Pink Arrington. After a careful consideration of the pleadings and proof, we are of the opinion that the chancellor was justified in finding that the deed was in fact a deed of trust given to secure the payment of funds advanced for the purchase price of the land. We find no reversible error. The decree should be and it is hereby affirmed.

Affirmed.

RODGERS, PATTERSON, SMITH and ROBERTSON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

199 So. 2d 625, 1967 Miss. LEXIS 1305, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burns-v-arrington-miss-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack