Appeal from the chancery court of Panola county.

Hon. D. M. Kimbrough, Chancellor.

Suit by Matt T. Sowell et al. against John L. Sowell et al. From a judgment ordering sale of lands for partition, defendant appeals.

The appellee filed a bill in chancery against appellants, alleging that they were tenants in common of certain lands described in the bill, and praying for a sale of said lands, for a division of the proceeds among the owners according to their respective interests. Appellants who were defendants below, answered, denying that appellees, complainants below, owned any interest whatever in the land. Upon the hearing the chancellor entered a decree in favor of complainants, and ordered the lands to be sold for a division of the proceeds, and appointed the chancery clerk as special commissioner of the court to make the sale in accordance with the terms of the decree and report his actions to the next term of the court after such sale, or to the chancellor in vacation. No appeal was obtained at the time, and the decree grants no appeal. Neither was a decree asked within ten days after the rendition of the decree, to wit, February 1, 1911. Afterwards, on March 25, 1911, the appellants filed a petition with the chancery clerk, praying an appeal with supersedeas.

When the case reached the supreme court, appellees filed the following motion: “Now come appellees, by their solicitors, and move the court to dismiss the appeal in this case, discharge the supersedeas herein granted, and for an order directing the special commissioner appointed by the court below to proceed to carry out the mandates of said decree, and for grounds for said motion say: (1) This is an appeal from an interlocutory decree of the chancery court, and no appeal was granted by the chancellor in term time, nor in vacation within ten days after the date of the decree complained of, in order to settle the principles of the case, or to avoid expense and delay. (2) No appeal has been granted by the chancellor, either in term time or in vacation, for any purpose whatsoever, and none applied for.”

The decree in the case at bar adjudges complainants and defendants to be tenants in common of the land, declares the deed under which defendants claim exclusive title null and void, and directs the clerk and master to cancel the same upon the records in his office, and decrees that defendants pay the costs; in fact adjudicates everything in controversy, leaving only the confirmation of the sale which, under the decree, may be done in vacation and concerning which there is no controversy.

I respectfully submit that under the definition of a final decree as announced by this court in the case of Humphreys v. Stafford, 71 Miss. 135, quoted supra, this decree is final.

…

Citation profile

Relationships

How this case has been treated — in progress