Jones v. M'Dougal

32 Miss. 179
CourtMississippi Supreme Court
DecidedOctober 15, 1856
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 32 Miss. 179 (Jones v. M'Dougal) 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. M'Dougal, 32 Miss. 179 (Mich. 1856).

Opinion

Fishee, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an appeal from a decree of a Vice-Chancery Court, holden at Fulton.

The bill alleges that the complainant, about the year 1846, purchased of Henry Craft, as agent of David Hook, a certain tract of land. That the complainant gave his notes to secure the purchase-money, and took from Craft a bond for title; that fearing that' he would not be able to make his payments at the time stipulated, he entered into an arrangement with the defendant, Jones, by which he, Jones, was to pay off the notes, receive a deed from Craft, and then to execute a title-bond to the complainant, by which he, the [180]*180defendant, was to convey tbe land upon the payment of the money and interest, advanced by Jones. The contract may be regarded as substantially proved, as averred in the bill.

It is manifest from the. whole case, that a sale of the land by the complainant to Jones, was not contemplated by either party, but that the title was merely vested .in Jones as a security. The Statute of Frauds has reference alone to contracts for the sale of ' land, and does not embrace cases of trust and confidence like the present. It cannot be contended that the trust was not one which a court of equity, if not restrained by some positive provision of statutory law, would enforce. The party could not in conscience retain the legal title under the agreement between the parties. The question, in such case, is not whether a court of equity, under general principles, can entertain jurisdiction, but whether the court has been circumscribed, by a provision of the statute, operating either upon the contract itself or upon the jurisdiction of the court.

Decree affirmed.

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

Related

Tanous v. White
191 So. 278 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1939)
Estate of Snook
5 Coffey 245 (California Superior Court, San Francisco County, 1897)
Clark v. Haney
62 Tex. 511 (Texas Supreme Court, 1884)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
32 Miss. 179, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-v-mdougal-miss-1856.