Strickland v. Busby

Mississippi Supreme Court

Strickland v. Busby

111 So. 133, 146 Miss. 649, 1927 Miss. LEXIS 173

CourtMississippi Supreme Court

DecidedApril 18, 1927

DocketNo. 26287.

StatusPublished

This text of 111 So. 133 (Strickland v. Busby) 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

Strickland v. Busby, 111 So. 133, 146 Miss. 649, 1927 Miss. LEXIS 173 (Mich. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

Smith, C. J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

Bushy is the sheriff of Wayne county, Miss., the United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company is a surety on his official bond, and Norsworthy is one of his deputies. The appellant sued the sheriff, his deputy, and the United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company in Jones county, wherein the United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company was engaged in business through a duly authorized agent on whom service of process was had, for damages sustained by him because of an alleged assault made on him in Wayne county by Busby and his deputy. On Busby’s application, the venue was transferred to Wayne county, where the case was tried and a judgment rendered exonerating the sheriff and his deputy, from which judgment the appellant has brought the case to this court.

The suit was originally filed in Jones county in December, 1925, and the change of venue to Wayne county was granted under chapter 155, Laws of 1926, which was enacted on the 24th day of February, 1926.

One of the appellant’s contentions is that this statute was not intended to apply to suits pending when it was enacted, and therefore the court below erred in granting the change of venue. Division B of this court has recently so construed this statute- in the case of State, to Use of Crisler Thompson v. M. M. Cloud, 146 Miss. 642, 112 So. 19. Consequently the judgment of the court below must be reversed and the cause remanded to the circuit court of Jones county for further proceedings.

So ordered.

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

Smith, C. J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

Bushy is the sheriff of Wayne county, Miss., the United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company is a surety on his official bond, and Norsworthy is one of his deputies. The appellant sued the sheriff, his deputy, and the United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company in Jones county, wherein the United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company was engaged in business through a duly authorized agent on whom service of process was had, for damages sustained by him because of an alleged assault made on him in Wayne county by Busby and his deputy. On Busby’s application, the venue was transferred to Wayne county, where the case was tried and a judgment rendered exonerating the sheriff and his deputy, from which judgment the appellant has brought the case to this court.

The suit was originally filed in Jones county in December, 1925, and the change of venue to Wayne county was granted under chapter 155, Laws of 1926, which was enacted on the 24th day of February, 1926.

One of the appellant’s contentions is that this statute was not intended to apply to suits pending when it was enacted, and therefore the court below erred in granting the change of venue. Division B of this court has recently so construed this statute- in the case of State, to Use of Crisler Thompson v. M. M. Cloud, 146 Miss. 642, 112 So. 19. Consequently the judgment of the court below must be reversed and the cause remanded to the circuit court of Jones county for further proceedings.

So ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

111 So. 133, 146 Miss. 649, 1927 Miss. LEXIS 173, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/strickland-v-busby-miss-1927.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack