Gully v. Neville

Mississippi Supreme Court

Gully v. Neville

82 So. 339, 120 Miss. 660

CourtMississippi Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 15, 1919

DocketNo. 20826

StatusPublished

This text of 82 So. 339 (Gully v. Neville) 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

Gully v. Neville, 82 So. 339, 120 Miss. 660 (Mich. 1919).

Pincite

Opinion

Smith, 0. J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The appellants exhibited their hill in the court below against appellees, and a demurrer thereto, interposed by the Bank of Kemper and Joe Cramer, was sustained, on April 29,1912, and the bill was not thereafter amended. The other defendants to the bill filed an answer thereto, and the cause proceeded to a trial on its merits, resulting in a decree on July 15, 1918, dismissing the bill, whereupon the complainants appealed to this court, and the cause now comes on to be heard on a motion filed by the Bank of Kemper and Joe Cramer to dismiss the appeal as to them, for the reaspn that as to them it is barred by the statute limiting the time within which appeals to this court can be taken. - -

The counsel for the appellants in his brief claims that the statute of limiatations can be here availed of only by a plea in bar, but in'-his oral argument stated that he would waive the point. The motion is ruled by Dickerson v. Telegraph Co., 111 Miss. 264, 71 So. 385; consequently it must be overruled.

Overruled.

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

Smith, 0. J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The appellants exhibited their hill in the court below against appellees, and a demurrer thereto, interposed by the Bank of Kemper and Joe Cramer, was sustained, on April 29,1912, and the bill was not thereafter amended. The other defendants to the bill filed an answer thereto, and the cause proceeded to a trial on its merits, resulting in a decree on July 15, 1918, dismissing the bill, whereupon the complainants appealed to this court, and the cause now comes on to be heard on a motion filed by the Bank of Kemper and Joe Cramer to dismiss the appeal as to them, for the reaspn that as to them it is barred by the statute limiting the time within which appeals to this court can be taken. - -

The counsel for the appellants in his brief claims that the statute of limiatations can be here availed of only by a plea in bar, but in'-his oral argument stated that he would waive the point. The motion is ruled by Dickerson v. Telegraph Co., 111 Miss. 264, 71 So. 385; consequently it must be overruled.

Overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 So. 339, 120 Miss. 660, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gully-v-neville-miss-1919.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack