Day v. Day

59 Miss. 318
CourtMississippi Supreme Court
DecidedOctober 15, 1881
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 59 Miss. 318 (Day v. Day) 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
Day v. Day, 59 Miss. 318 (Mich. 1881).

Opinion

Campbell, J.,

delivered, the opinion of the court.

The conveyance of the land by the auditor of public accounts was improperly admitted in evidence. It was not a deed as required by the statutes. Code 1871, § 2302; Acts 1878, p. 52. It had no seal. The auditor has an official seal, and it should have been affixed to the conveyance. Under the Code of 1871 a conveyance by a tax collector did not require a seal, as held in Bowers v. Chambers, 53 Miss. 259, but that was exceptional, and the exception did not apply to conveyances by the auditor or others not embraced by the statute creating the exception. We cannot adopt the suggestion of the learned counsel for the appellee, and affirm the judgment on the ground that another trial will produce the same result as before ; for another trial, with the auditor’s conveyance without his seal affixed must, in accordance with this opinion, result in a verdict for the appellant.

Judgment reversed.

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

Related

Hatchett v. Thompson
165 So. 110 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1936)
Dussart v. M. Abdo Mercantile Co.
57 Colo. 423 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1914)
Spokane Terminal Co. v. Stanford
87 P. 37 (Washington Supreme Court, 1906)
Reed v. Morse
51 Kan. 141 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1893)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
59 Miss. 318, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/day-v-day-miss-1881.