Orr v. Jackson Jitney Co.

75 So. 945, 115 Miss. 140
Mississippi Supreme Court·Decided March 15, 1917·Published·Cited by 10 cases

Opinion

Smith, C. J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The Jackson Jitney Car Company was engaged in two separate and distinct lines of business: First, operating automobiles and taxicabs for the carriage of passengers for hire in the city of Jackson and vicinity; and, second, trading in automobile supplies. The Jitney bus here in controversy was acquired and used in its business of operating automobiles for hire, and consequently does not come within the provisions of section 4784 of the Code, so that the lien of Decell, the judgment creditor, should have been postponed to that of appellant.

Dumford, the mechanic, has no lien for the charges in his account aggregating fourteen dollars and twenty-five cents for “going after and bringing in the car,” so that he might repair it; services of this character not coming within the provisions of section 3075 of the Code, and to that extent the decree in his favor is erroneous.

Reversed, and judgment here in accordance with this opinion.

Reversed.

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

Orr v. Jackson Jitney Co., 75 So. 945, 115 Miss. 140 (Mich. 1917).

75 So. 945 (Orr v. Jackson Jitney Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Southern General Insurance v. Auto Transformation, Inc.
424 S.E.2d 883 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1992)
White v. Cabot Corp.
194 So. 2d 499 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1967)
Yellow Mfg. Acceptance Corp. v. American Oil Co.
2 So. 2d 834 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1941)
De Van Motor Co. v. Bailey
171 So. 342 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1936)
Rome Mfg. Co. v. Bailey
51 F.2d 850 (S.D. Mississippi, 1931)
Wingate v. Mississippi Securities Co.
120 So. 175 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1929)
West Allis Industrial Loan Co. v. Stark
222 N.W. 310 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1928)
Hardy v. Watkins
117 So. 255 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1928)
Sayers & Scovill Co. v. Doak
89 So. 917 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1921)
Hollis & Ray v. Isbell
87 So. 273 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1921)