Newell v. Briggs

Mississippi Supreme Court

Newell v. Briggs

4 Miss. 45

DecidedDecember 15, 1838

StatusPublished

This text of 4 Miss. 45 (Newell v. Briggs) 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

Newell v. Briggs, 4 Miss. 45 (Mich. 1838).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam, Pray J.

This canse is presented to us on a motion to dismiss the same for want of citation return served.

The motion is resisted upon an affidavit of A. G. Harrison, a deputy sheriff of Yazoo county, who states, “that on the 13th day of November, 1S3S, he executed in this case a-citation on S, M. Grayson, the attorney of record, for the defendants in error, to appear at the High Court of Errors and Appeals at the December term, 1838, to defend said suit. That he has made diligent search for the said citation but cannot find it.”

This affidavit relieves the plaintiff in error from all charge of laches. He has exercised all the diligence the law can require. The motion, therefore, as it is now presented, would be overruled, if no subsequent neglect had occurred. But there has been a lapse of fifteen days since he was bound to know that his process had not been returned; and no step has been taken for an alias; for this neglect the cause must be dismissed with damages and costs.

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

Per Curiam, Pray J.

This canse is presented to us on a motion to dismiss the same for want of citation return served.

The motion is resisted upon an affidavit of A. G. Harrison, a deputy sheriff of Yazoo county, who states, “that on the 13th day of November, 1S3S, he executed in this case a-citation on S, M. Grayson, the attorney of record, for the defendants in error, to appear at the High Court of Errors and Appeals at the December term, 1838, to defend said suit. That he has made diligent search for the said citation but cannot find it.”

This affidavit relieves the plaintiff in error from all charge of laches. He has exercised all the diligence the law can require. The motion, therefore, as it is now presented, would be overruled, if no subsequent neglect had occurred. But there has been a lapse of fifteen days since he was bound to know that his process had not been returned; and no step has been taken for an alias; for this neglect the cause must be dismissed with damages and costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 Miss. 45, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/newell-v-briggs-miss-1838.