Dodds v. Pratt

Mississippi Supreme Court

Dodds v. Pratt

64 Miss. 123

Mississippi Supreme Court·Decided October 15, 1886·Published·Cited by 9 cases

Opinion

Campbell, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The goods were Kiser’s, undoubtedly, but the deed of trust he gave to secure the purchase-money for them was coetaneous with his acquisition of title, and therefore he held them subject to the deed of trust, which was paramount to any other claim.

Section 1300 of the Code of 1880 does not derange the order of priority among the creditors of the person transacting business. The property made liable for his debts is to be subjected in the order of precedence fixed by law independently of § 1300.

As the condition of the deed of trust had been broten at the time of the trial it was right to maintain the claim, although it was made prematurely. Helm v. Gray, 59 Miss. 54.

Affirmed.

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

Campbell, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The goods were Kiser’s, undoubtedly, but the deed of trust he gave to secure the purchase-money for them was coetaneous with his acquisition of title, and therefore he held them subject to the deed of trust, which was paramount to any other claim.

Section 1300 of the Code of 1880 does not derange the order of priority among the creditors of the person transacting business. The property made liable for his debts is to be subjected in the order of precedence fixed by law independently of § 1300.

As the condition of the deed of trust had been broten at the time of the trial it was right to maintain the claim, although it was made prematurely. Helm v. Gray, 59 Miss. 54.

Affirmed.

Dodds v. Pratt, 64 Miss. 123 (Mich. 1886).

Pincite

64 Miss. 123 (Dodds v. Pratt) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related