Fish Meal Co. v. Brondum

Mississippi Supreme Court

Fish Meal Co. v. Brondum

150 So. 2d 432, 246 Miss. 468, 1963 Miss. LEXIS 466

CourtMississippi Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 4, 1963

DocketNo. 42602

StatusPublished

This text of 150 So. 2d 432 (Fish Meal Co. v. Brondum) 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

Fish Meal Co. v. Brondum, 150 So. 2d 432, 246 Miss. 468, 1963 Miss. LEXIS 466 (Mich. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

McGehee, C. J.

(Hn 1) The issue in this case was fully covered and determined by us in the case of Fish Meal Co. v. Brondum, et al, 242 Miss. 573, 135 So. 2d 825, when on the interlocutory appeal' therein we held that the release of the primary endorser, whose endorsement was individual, unqualified and unlimited, resulted in the release of all of the endorsers who were secondarily liable. We affirmed and remanded the case in order that the chancellor might determine as an issue of fact whether or not the release of the principal endorser on the note, upon his payment of $44,000 thereon, was consented to by the remaining defendants. That issue has since been determined in the negative by the chancellor and we affirm his decree in that behalf.

Affirmed.

Arrington, McElroy, Rodgers, and Jones, JJ., concur.

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

McGehee, C. J.

(Hn 1) The issue in this case was fully covered and determined by us in the case of Fish Meal Co. v. Brondum, et al, 242 Miss. 573, 135 So. 2d 825, when on the interlocutory appeal' therein we held that the release of the primary endorser, whose endorsement was individual, unqualified and unlimited, resulted in the release of all of the endorsers who were secondarily liable. We affirmed and remanded the case in order that the chancellor might determine as an issue of fact whether or not the release of the principal endorser on the note, upon his payment of $44,000 thereon, was consented to by the remaining defendants. That issue has since been determined in the negative by the chancellor and we affirm his decree in that behalf.

Affirmed.

Arrington, McElroy, Rodgers, and Jones, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

150 So. 2d 432, 246 Miss. 468, 1963 Miss. LEXIS 466, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fish-meal-co-v-brondum-miss-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack