Thames v. Duvic

Mississippi Supreme Court

Thames v. Duvic

42 So. 667, 89 Miss. 9

CourtMississippi Supreme Court

DecidedNovember 15, 1906

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 42 So. 667 (Thames v. Duvic) 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

Thames v. Duvic, 42 So. 667, 89 Miss. 9 (Mich. 1906).

Pincite

Opinion

Calhoon, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The bill does not show facts making it appear that the conveyance to Mrs. Duvic was not valid, nor does it show the interest of any of the parties, complainant or defendant, in the land, nor when William Thames died, nor how any one of the parties is heir to him. It follows that the demurrer was properly sustained, and, on failure to amend, that the bill was properly dismissed. Still, while we affirm, we do so, to avoid misconception, without prejudice to another proceeding properly brought; the appellant to pay costs of both courts.

Affirmed.

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

Calhoon, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The bill does not show facts making it appear that the conveyance to Mrs. Duvic was not valid, nor does it show the interest of any of the parties, complainant or defendant, in the land, nor when William Thames died, nor how any one of the parties is heir to him. It follows that the demurrer was properly sustained, and, on failure to amend, that the bill was properly dismissed. Still, while we affirm, we do so, to avoid misconception, without prejudice to another proceeding properly brought; the appellant to pay costs of both courts.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

42 So. 667, 89 Miss. 9, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thames-v-duvic-miss-1906.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack