Cole v. Fagan

66 So. 400, 108 Miss. 100
Mississippi Supreme Court·Decided October 15, 1914·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Cook, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

As we view this case, the chancery court passed upon the conflicting evidence solving the issue in favor of appellee. Ve cannot say that the finding of fact was clearly wrong, but, on the contrary, it seems to us that there was ample evidence to support the decree of the court.

"We think the dismissal of the former bill without prejudice as to appellee did not bar another suit by him upon the same cause of action. The effect of a decree by the chancellor, dismissing the bill without prejudice is that such dismissal shall not operate to bar a new suit which the complainant might thereafter bring upon the same cause of action. Nevitt v. Bacon, 32 Miss. 212, 66 Am. Dec. 609. There is no element of estoppel involved here.

Affirmed.

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

Cole v. Fagan, 66 So. 400, 108 Miss. 100 (Mich. 1914).

66 So. 400 (Cole v. Fagan) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Barlow v. Hoffman
86 P.2d 239 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1938)
W. T. Raleigh Co. v. Barnes
109 So. 8 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1926)