Louis Werner Sawmill Co. v. Sheffield

42 So. 876, 89 Miss. 12
Mississippi Supreme Court·Decided November 15, 1906·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

Mayes, J.,

The Louis Werner Sawmill Company is conceded to be a nonresident of this state. The jurisdiction of the chancery court to entertain this suit depended upon the fact that the Yazoo & Mississippi Valley Railroad Company had in its hands effects belonging to the Louis Werner Sawmill Company at the time the writ of attachment was served on it. The answers had denied that the railroad company had any effects of the Louis Werner Sawmill Company in its possession at the time the writ of attachment was served on it,- and the burden rested on Sheffield to establish this fact. The proof in the case utterly fails to show that the Yazoo & Mississippi Valley Railroad Company had any of the effects of the Louis Werner Sawmill Company in its hands at the date of the serving of the writ of attachment, and therefore the court was without jurisdiction to entertain this suit, and there should have been no statement of [19] accounts ordered. There being no jurisdiction shown, all the proceedings should be dismissed.

For this reason, the judgment is reversed, and the cause dismissed.

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

Louis Werner Sawmill Co. v. Sheffield, 42 So. 876, 89 Miss. 12 (Mich. 1906).

42 So. 876 (Louis Werner Sawmill Co. v. Sheffield) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Penrod Drilling Co. v. Bounds
433 So. 2d 916 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1983)
Crescent Plywood Company v. Lawrence
305 So. 2d 343 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1974)
Martin v. Adams Mercantile Co.
33 So. 2d 633 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1948)
Branham v. Drew Grocery Co.
111 So. 155 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1927)
Weaver Grocery Co. v. Cain Milling Co.
78 So. 769 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1918)