Rush v. Pearson

Mississippi Supreme Court

Rush v. Pearson

45 So. 723, 92 Miss. 153

Mississippi Supreme Court·Decided October 15, 1907·Published

Opinion

Mayes, J.,

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

Mayes, J.,

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.

Rush v. Pearson, 45 So. 723, 92 Miss. 153 (Mich. 1907).

Pincite

45 So. 723 (Rush v. Pearson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related