Moore v. Caldwell

Mississippi Chancery Courts

Moore v. Caldwell

1 Free. Ch. 222

DecidedJuly 1, 1844

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Free. Ch. 222 (Moore v. Caldwell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Mississippi Chancery Courts primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Moore v. Caldwell, 1 Free. Ch. 222 (Mich. Super. Ct. 1844).

Pincite

Opinion

The Chancellor.

The complainant purchased part of the sixteenth section from the trustees of the township, and gave his note for the purchase money. He alleges he obtained no title, because, he says, the trustees were not legally elected, there having been some irregularity in the mode of conducting the elections.

I have heretofore decided this question. Whether the election was or was not conducted with all the formalities prescribed by law, is a question which cannot be investigated in this collateral mode. That can only be done by an information in the nature of a quo warranto, regularly prosecuted before the proper tribunal. They were at least trustees defacto, whether de jure or not, and their acts as such will be held valid.

The complainant does not pretend that he has been disturbed in his title, or that it has in any way been questioned. Who could question it? Certainly no one but the trustees who might succeed those who were the complainant’s vendors. Could they question it? Certainly not: they, would be estopped by the deed of their predecessors, being privies' in law.

The bill must'be dismissed at the-complainant’s cost.

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

The Chancellor.

The complainant purchased part of the sixteenth section from the trustees of the township, and gave his note for the purchase money. He alleges he obtained no title, because, he says, the trustees were not legally elected, there having been some irregularity in the mode of conducting the elections.

I have heretofore decided this question. Whether the election was or was not conducted with all the formalities prescribed by law, is a question which cannot be investigated in this collateral mode. That can only be done by an information in the nature of a quo warranto, regularly prosecuted before the proper tribunal. They were at least trustees defacto, whether de jure or not, and their acts as such will be held valid.

The complainant does not pretend that he has been disturbed in his title, or that it has in any way been questioned. Who could question it? Certainly no one but the trustees who might succeed those who were the complainant’s vendors. Could they question it? Certainly not: they, would be estopped by the deed of their predecessors, being privies' in law.

The bill must'be dismissed at the-complainant’s cost.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Free. Ch. 222, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moore-v-caldwell-misschanceryct-1844.