Indian Refining Co. v. Bishop

Mississippi Supreme Court

Indian Refining Co. v. Bishop

83 So. 276, 120 Miss. 872

Mississippi Supreme Court·Decided October 15, 1919·No. No. 20905·Published

Opinion

Holden, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

It is not important to state the facts. The amount of "damages recovered is grossly excessive, and most of which were not occasioned directly by the attachment. Marqueze v. Southeimer, 59 Miss. 430.

If remittitur is entered, reducing the amount to two hundred and fifty dollars, the jugment will he affirmed; otherwise, reversed generally.

Affirmed Conditionally.

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

Holden, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

It is not important to state the facts. The amount of "damages recovered is grossly excessive, and most of which were not occasioned directly by the attachment. Marqueze v. Southeimer, 59 Miss. 430.

If remittitur is entered, reducing the amount to two hundred and fifty dollars, the jugment will he affirmed; otherwise, reversed generally.

Affirmed Conditionally.

Indian Refining Co. v. Bishop, 83 So. 276, 120 Miss. 872 (Mich. 1919).

Pincite

83 So. 276 (Indian Refining Co. v. Bishop) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related