Jones v. Jones

55 So. 361, 99 Miss. 600
CourtMississippi Supreme Court
DecidedMarch 15, 1911
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 55 So. 361 (Jones v. Jones) 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
Jones v. Jones, 55 So. 361, 99 Miss. 600 (Mich. 1911).

Opinion

Smith, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The bill of complaint is not open to objection on the ground of multifariousness. Among our numerous decisions dealing with this subject, we will refer specially only to Butler v. Spann, 27 Miss. 234; Garrett v. Railroad Co., Freem. Ch., 70; Wright v. Shelton, Smedes & M. Ch., 399; Waller v. Shannon, 53 Miss. 500.

Since, under our statute (section 2517 of the present Code), all of the disabilities of coverture have been removed, a married woman may lawfully enter into a partnership with her husband. We can add nothing to what was said on this subject by this court iu Toof v. Brewer, 3 South. 571. In that case the court was dealing with a partnership existing between husband and wife in the state of Arkansas; consequently the case has not been officially reported. We now direct that same be officially reported. See, also, Hoaglin v. Henderson, 119 Iowa, [610]*610720, 94 N. W. 247, 61 L. R. A. 756, 97 Am. St. Rep. 335; Suau v. Caffe, 122 N. Y. 308, 25 N. E. 488, 9 L. R. A. 593; Burney v. Savannah Gro. Co., 98 Ga. 711, 25 S. E. 915, 58 Am. St. Rep. 342; Ellis v. Mills, 99 Ga. 490, 27 S. E. 640; Visard v. Moody, 119 Ga. 918, 47 S. E. 348; Morrison v. Dickey, 122 Ga. 353, 50 S. E. 175, 69 L. R. A. 87; Belser v. Tuscumbia Banking Co., 105 Ala. 514, 17 South. 40; Schlapback v. Long, 90 Ala. 525, 8 South. 113; Lane v. Bishop, 65 Vt. 575, 27 Atl. 499; Bernard & L. Mfg. Co. v. Packard, 64 Fed. 309, 12 C. C. A. 123; In re Kinkead, 3 Biss. 405, Fed. Cas. No. 7824.

We have not considered the fifth and sixth grounds of demurrer, for the reason that same do not go to the whole bill, and consequently can have no place in a general demurrer.

There is no merit in the other matter complained of.

Affirmed and remanded.

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

Related

McGehee v. McGehee
85 So. 2d 799 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1956)
Armstrong v. Jones
22 So. 2d 7 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1945)
Barry v. Mattocks
125 So. 554 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1930)
Virden v. Commissioner
6 B.T.A. 1123 (Board of Tax Appeals, 1927)
Burwell v. South Carolina Tax Commission
126 S.E. 29 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1924)
Burwell v. S.C. Tax Commission
126 S.E. 29 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1924)
Rose v. Jones
78 So. 771 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1918)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
55 So. 361, 99 Miss. 600, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-v-jones-miss-1911.