Townsend v. Odam

Mississippi Supreme Court

Townsend v. Odam

1 Miss. 356

DecidedDecember 15, 1829

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Miss. 356 (Townsend v. Odam) 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

Townsend v. Odam, 1 Miss. 356 (Mich. 1829).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT — by the

Hon. JOHN BLACK.

The first of these has been already disposed of, or shown not to exist,,

This bill is in all its aspects purely a bill for discovery. After stating the existence of an offset to the suits brought by the administrator, the complainants say: all of which facts lie principally within the knowledge of the defendants, and pray that they may fully disclose, and pray an injunction until the coming in of the answers. There is no instance known of a bill purely for discovery being set down for a final hearing; and if this bill were not considered of that character, and the promise of an administrator were considered sufficient proof of the demand, the answers fully deny ever promising to allow the offsett; and there is only one witness, Mr. Roach, who swears to such an acknowledgment by the administrator, Odam; which is insufficient under the state of the pleadings.

Judges Child and Nicholson concurred.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT — by the

Hon. JOHN BLACK.

The first of these has been already disposed of, or shown not to exist,,

This bill is in all its aspects purely a bill for discovery. After stating the existence of an offset to the suits brought by the administrator, the complainants say: all of which facts lie principally within the knowledge of the defendants, and pray that they may fully disclose, and pray an injunction until the coming in of the answers. There is no instance known of a bill purely for discovery being set down for a final hearing; and if this bill were not considered of that character, and the promise of an administrator were considered sufficient proof of the demand, the answers fully deny ever promising to allow the offsett; and there is only one witness, Mr. Roach, who swears to such an acknowledgment by the administrator, Odam; which is insufficient under the state of the pleadings.

Judges Child and Nicholson concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Miss. 356, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/townsend-v-odam-miss-1829.