Cowden v. Lockridge

60 Miss. 385
Mississippi Supreme Court·Decided October 15, 1882·Published·Cited by 11 cases

Opinion

Chalmers, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The words, “ one bay mare,” contained in a trust-deed, there being nothing else to identify the particular animal referred to, constitute an insufficient description, and render the instrument void as to a purchaser for value, who has no other notice of the rights of the parties than that afforded by the record of the conveyance. Nicholson v. Karpe, 58 Miss. 36 ; Kelley v. Reid, 57 Miss. 89.

The allowance of attorney’s fees, by way of damages to the •defendant, was improper. Such an allowance in replevin can •only be made under circumstances' which would warrant the imposition of punitory or exemplary damages, and even then is denied in some of the States. Nothin»- like wilful wrona. [388]*388fraud, malice, or oppression having been shown here, the allowance was erroneous. Wells on Replev., sects. 576, 577.

Reversed, with leave to have affirmance on entry of remit-titur.

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

Cowden v. Lockridge, 60 Miss. 385 (Mich. 1882).

60 Miss. 385 (Cowden v. Lockridge) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Miss. v. Campbell
466 So. 2d 833 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1984)
Hung Kwong Leung v. Law
247 So. 2d 695 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1971)
Standard Finance Corp. v. Breland
163 So. 2d 232 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1964)
Smith Chevrolet Co. v. Finch
117 So. 258 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1928)
Thornton v. Gardner
99 So. 131 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1924)
Gregory v. Woodbery
53 Fla. 566 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1907)
Young v. Salley
83 Miss. 362 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1903)
Laughlin v. Barnes & Parrott
76 Mo. App. 258 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1898)
Taylor v. Morton
61 Miss. 24 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1883)