Rush v. Pearson
This text of 45 So. 723 (Rush v. Pearson) 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.
Opinion
delivered the opinion of the court.
It was necessary for Rush to tender into court the amount admitted to be due, or pay same, before he could maintain his injunction. Purvis v. Woodward, 78 Miss., 922, 29 South., 917; Crittenden v. Ragan, 89 Miss., 185, 42 South., 281; Lewis v. Boguechitto, 76 Miss., 356, 24 South., 875; M. & O. Ry. Co. v. Moseley, 52 Miss., 127. We think the decree of the chancery court was correct. The decree is affirmed and the cause remanded, with leave to complainant to pay the amount admitted to be due in ten days after mandate filed; otherwise, the injunction stands dissolved.
Affirmed and remanded.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
45 So. 723, 92 Miss. 153, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rush-v-pearson-miss-1907.