State v. Ricketts

67 Miss. 409
Mississippi Supreme Court·Decided October 15, 1889·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Cooper, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The injunction should have been dissolved. The recital in the judgment nisi that Ricketts and his sureties had bound themselves by a recognizance instead of a bail bond was, at most, an irregularity, assignable for error on appeal, and not affecting the validity of the judgment in a collateral attack.

The seire facias was not void because of the fact that the parties were cited to appear at the next term of the circuit court to be held in Grenada, in the county of Grenada, on the-Monday of January, 1888.” The law fixed the date for the beginning of said term, and the appellees were sufficiently notified when to appear. Wharton v. Conger, 9 S. & M. 510; Lore v. McRae, 12 Ala. 444; Yonge v. Broxson, 23 Ib. 684.

But, if the judgment was void, the appellees have a plain, adequate, and complete remedy at law, and no exceptional circumstances are shown warranting the interposition of a court of chancery. Jones v. Coker, 53 Miss. 195; Beatty v. Smith, 2 S. & M. 567; Boone v. Poindexter, 12 Ib. 640.

The decree is reversed and injunction dissolved.

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

State v. Ricketts, 67 Miss. 409 (Mich. 1889).

67 Miss. 409 (State v. Ricketts) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

United States v. Ewing
19 F.2d 378 (N.D. Mississippi, 1927)