Butterfield Lumber Co. v. Hartman

Mississippi Supreme Court

Butterfield Lumber Co. v. Hartman

82 Miss. 494

CourtMississippi Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 15, 1903

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 82 Miss. 494 (Butterfield Lumber Co. v. Hartman) 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

Butterfield Lumber Co. v. Hartman, 82 Miss. 494 (Mich. 1903).

Pincite

Opinion

Calhoon, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

We are driven to the conclusion that the decree of the court below must have been the result of an opinion that the agreement between Esau Harness and the grantor of appellant that, in consideration of the advance money to perfect his homestead entry and get his patent, Esau would sell the timber on the land in controversy, was against public policy and void, and made void also the subsequent sale of the timber to reimburse for that advance. We are not in accord with that view. Rev. St. U. S., secs. 2290, 2291, 2296 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, pp. 1389, 1390, 1398), with Gould & Tucker’s notes, vol. 1, p. 537. On the testimony we cannot escape the conviction that the appellee had such notice as should put any reasonable man on inquiry, which would have disclosed the existence of the conveyance of the timber and right of way by Esau to the grantor of appellants.

Reversed, and decree here in accordance with the prayer of the hill.

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

Calhoon, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

We are driven to the conclusion that the decree of the court below must have been the result of an opinion that the agreement between Esau Harness and the grantor of appellant that, in consideration of the advance money to perfect his homestead entry and get his patent, Esau would sell the timber on the land in controversy, was against public policy and void, and made void also the subsequent sale of the timber to reimburse for that advance. We are not in accord with that view. Rev. St. U. S., secs. 2290, 2291, 2296 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, pp. 1389, 1390, 1398), with Gould & Tucker’s notes, vol. 1, p. 537. On the testimony we cannot escape the conviction that the appellee had such notice as should put any reasonable man on inquiry, which would have disclosed the existence of the conveyance of the timber and right of way by Esau to the grantor of appellants.

Reversed, and decree here in accordance with the prayer of the hill.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 Miss. 494, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/butterfield-lumber-co-v-hartman-miss-1903.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack