Nelson v. Leake

Mississippi Supreme Court

Nelson v. Leake

25 Miss. 199

DecidedOctober 15, 1852

StatusPublished

This text of 25 Miss. 199 (Nelson v. Leake) 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

Nelson v. Leake, 25 Miss. 199 (Mich. 1852).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Yerger

delivered the opinion of the court.

'The proof of the witness, Matthews, established the interest of the complainant as a tenant in common in the tract of land on which the town of Eastport is situated, to the extent of three one hundredths of the whole. No objection was taken in the court below to the deposition of Matthews, and it is too late to make any in this court. We are unable to perceive any error in the decree of the vice-chancellor directing the account, except that he has not directed an account to be taken of the value of the permanent improvements put by the defendants on that part of the property yet unsold. The complainant should account to the defendants for these improvements, in-the proportion of his interest in the property.' To* that extent the decree of the vice-chancellor is erroneous. We therefore reverse the cause, and remand the same, with directions to the vice-chancellor to enter up a decree in conformity with the views expressed in (this opinion.

Decree reversed, and cause remanded, at the cost of appellants.

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

Mr. Justice Yerger

delivered the opinion of the court.

'The proof of the witness, Matthews, established the interest of the complainant as a tenant in common in the tract of land on which the town of Eastport is situated, to the extent of three one hundredths of the whole. No objection was taken in the court below to the deposition of Matthews, and it is too late to make any in this court. We are unable to perceive any error in the decree of the vice-chancellor directing the account, except that he has not directed an account to be taken of the value of the permanent improvements put by the defendants on that part of the property yet unsold. The complainant should account to the defendants for these improvements, in-the proportion of his interest in the property.' To* that extent the decree of the vice-chancellor is erroneous. We therefore reverse the cause, and remand the same, with directions to the vice-chancellor to enter up a decree in conformity with the views expressed in (this opinion.

Decree reversed, and cause remanded, at the cost of appellants.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 Miss. 199, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nelson-v-leake-miss-1852.