McIntosh v. Rutland

41 So. 372, 88 Miss. 718
CourtMississippi Supreme Court
DecidedApril 15, 1906
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 41 So. 372 (McIntosh v. Rutland) 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
McIntosh v. Rutland, 41 So. 372, 88 Miss. 718 (Mich. 1906).

Opinion

AViiiteield, C. J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The instrument in this case evidencing the agreement as to the sale of the timber is a plain contract, and not a mere option af” all. The interest in the proceeds of the timber, upon the death of the wife, descended to the husband and daughter. The husband, for a valuable consideration, assigned his entire interest away. It is averred in the bill that there are no other assets belonging to the estate, except the interest in the proceeds of this timber. On this state of facts, averred in the bill, it is perfectly manifest that the demurrer should have been overruled.

The decree is reversed, the demurrer overruled, and cause remanded for answer within thirty days from filing of mandate in the court below.

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

Related

Baird & Montgomery v. Lewis
90 So. 2d 184 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1956)
Chamberlain v. Grisham
229 S.W.2d 14 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1949)
Case v. Harrison
6 So. 2d 582 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1942)
Hollister v. Frellsen
114 So. 385 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1927)
Brenner v. Spiegle
157 N.E. 491 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1927)
Williamson Real Estate Co. v. Sasser
103 S.E. 73 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1920)
Blaisdell v. Steinfeld
137 P. 555 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1914)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
41 So. 372, 88 Miss. 718, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcintosh-v-rutland-miss-1906.