Davis v. Whittington

Mississippi Supreme Court

Davis v. Whittington

100 So. 195, 135 Miss. 378, 1924 Miss. LEXIS 59

Mississippi Supreme Court·Decided May 19, 1924·No. No. 24045·Published

Opinion

Smith, C. J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

Two errors only appear in the decree of the court below: (1) The attorney’s fee provided in the notes should have been allowed; and (2) the appellee should not have been allowed credit for interest on the mortgage to the Federal Farm Loan Bank.

The decree of the court below will be reversed, and a decree will be rendered here in accordance with this opinion.

Reversed and decree here.

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

Smith, C. J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

Two errors only appear in the decree of the court below: (1) The attorney’s fee provided in the notes should have been allowed; and (2) the appellee should not have been allowed credit for interest on the mortgage to the Federal Farm Loan Bank.

The decree of the court below will be reversed, and a decree will be rendered here in accordance with this opinion.

Reversed and decree here.

Davis v. Whittington, 100 So. 195, 135 Miss. 378, 1924 Miss. LEXIS 59 (Mich. 1924).

Pincite

100 So. 195 (Davis v. Whittington) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.