Chambliss v. Wood

Mississippi Supreme Court

Chambliss v. Wood

84 Miss. 209

CourtMississippi Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 15, 1904

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 84 Miss. 209 (Chambliss v. Wood) 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

Chambliss v. Wood, 84 Miss. 209 (Mich. 1904).

Pincite

Opinion

Whitfield, C. J.,

delivered the opinion of the court on the motion.

The case of Houston v. Witherspoon, 68 Miss., 188 (8 South., 515), is not authority here for two reasons: Eirst — The decree in this case was rendered in July, 1901, and the. appeal was [211]*211consequently barred in July, 1903. The transcript was not filed in this court until September, 1903, more than two years after the rendition of the decree. Second — No citation was served on the appellee in this case, as was done in Houston v. Witherspoon. It was said in that case on this point: “In this case citation was served on the appellee, who did not avail of his right to apply to have the case docketed and dismissed, and will be held to have acquiesced in the delay.” The appellee here cannot be held to have acquiesced in the delay, since no citation was served upon him.

The motion is sustained.

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

Whitfield, C. J.,

delivered the opinion of the court on the motion.

The case of Houston v. Witherspoon, 68 Miss., 188 (8 South., 515), is not authority here for two reasons: Eirst — The decree in this case was rendered in July, 1901, and the. appeal was [211]*211consequently barred in July, 1903. The transcript was not filed in this court until September, 1903, more than two years after the rendition of the decree. Second — No citation was served on the appellee in this case, as was done in Houston v. Witherspoon. It was said in that case on this point: “In this case citation was served on the appellee, who did not avail of his right to apply to have the case docketed and dismissed, and will be held to have acquiesced in the delay.” The appellee here cannot be held to have acquiesced in the delay, since no citation was served upon him.

The motion is sustained.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

84 Miss. 209, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chambliss-v-wood-miss-1904.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack