Fultz v. Peterson

Mississippi Supreme Court

Fultz v. Peterson

78 Miss. 128

Mississippi Supreme Court·Decided October 15, 1900·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Calhoon, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The conclusion of the chancellor on the facts should not be disturbed in the main case, or on the report of the commissioner. We think the report of that officer shows nothing of which appellants can complain, but that they may congratulate themselves on the result. Code 1892, § 4230, cannot avail appellants. Klein v. McNamara, 54 Miss., 90; Runnels v. Jackson, 1 How. (Miss.), 358. Nor can code 1892, §4233, [132]*132avail them, because in this case Peterson never parted with the possession of the land. While he was not personally in possession, he was by his tenant, who was known to be such by all parties. Heirmann v. Stricklin, 60 Miss., 234.

Affirmed.

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

Calhoon, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The conclusion of the chancellor on the facts should not be disturbed in the main case, or on the report of the commissioner. We think the report of that officer shows nothing of which appellants can complain, but that they may congratulate themselves on the result. Code 1892, § 4230, cannot avail appellants. Klein v. McNamara, 54 Miss., 90; Runnels v. Jackson, 1 How. (Miss.), 358. Nor can code 1892, §4233, [132]*132avail them, because in this case Peterson never parted with the possession of the land. While he was not personally in possession, he was by his tenant, who was known to be such by all parties. Heirmann v. Stricklin, 60 Miss., 234.

Affirmed.

Fultz v. Peterson, 78 Miss. 128 (Mich. 1900).

Pincite

78 Miss. 128 (Fultz v. Peterson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related