Volume 122 — Mississippi Reports

Hon. A. J. McIntyre, Chancellor. Suit by W. T. Adams against H. F. Young and others. General demurrer to hill overruled, and defendants appeal. This suit is predicated upon an alleged timber contract, entered into between J. B. and J. R. Berryman and John W. McIntyre.

<p>1. Trial. Quotient verdict irregular if result of agreement.</p> <p>A verdict arrived at by adding together the amounts the several jurors thought should be awarded to the plaintiff and dividing the sum thus obtained by twelve, pursuant to a previous agreement by the jurors so to .do, is irregular and will be set aside.</p> <p>2. Trial. To render quotient verdict error, previous agreement is necessary.</p> <p>A quotient verdict will not be set aside unless it affirmatively appears from the evidence that the jurors agreed in. advance to return such a verdict.</p>

<p>Appeal from circuit court of Alcorn county.</p> <p>Hon. C. P. Long, Judge.</p> <p>Elmer Johnson was convicted of perjury, and he appeals.</p>

Hon. W. A. Alcorn, Jr., Judge. John Henry Miller was convicted of murder and he appeals. Held: so far as we have been able to discover, that a jury could possibly be a jury until it has been sworn to try the particular casé. It is not a trial by jury, for, as Judge Davidson said, a jury cannot be said to be impaneled until it has been sworn.

<p>Appeal from circuit court of Marshall -county.</p> <p>Hon. Chas. Lee Crum, Judge.</p> <p>Buel Humphreys was convicted of larceny, and lie appeals.</p>

<p>Appeal from chancery court of Harrison county.</p> <p>Hon. W. M>. Denny, Jr,., Chancellor.</p> <p>Suit hy George S. Gully against the Board of Supervisors of Harrison County for an injunction. From a decree overruling defendant’s demurrer, it appeals.</p> <p>Section 320, Code of 1906, is as follows: “The board of supervisors of any county may, when in its opinion the interest of the county would be subserved thereby, procure, by purchase or have made, a complete abstract of title to land in the county, and may provide all books necessary for the purpose, and the costs thereof shall be paid out of the county treasury. Such abstracts, when purchased or made, shall be kept in the office of the chancery clerk as a public record.”</p> <p>The board of supervisors, in pursuance of this statute, passed an order for the purchase of an abstract of titles of land in the county, but omitted to state in said order that, in its opinion, the interests of the county would be subserved thereby. In all other respects there is no- objection to the order.</p> <p>Objection is made by appellee to the order because the board failed to express in the order that, in its opinion, the interests of the county would be subserved by the purchase of such abstract; that this is jurisdictional and makes the order null and void, as all jurisdictional facts must appear of record. * However, we say that this language applies to a mental operation of the board, which need not be expressed in the order. In other words, jurisdictional facts mean affirmative facts. Whenever a statute lays down a number of things that must be done before the board of supervisors can pass an order, the order must recite that all the things required to be done by the statute were done; but it is not necessary for the hoard to place its mental operation of record tp make the order valid.</p> <p>Further objection to the order is made on the ground that no plans and specifications of the kind and nature of the abstract were made and filed, and this was in violation of section 361 of the Code of 1906.</p> <p>We do not think that this section applies to purchase of an abstract, as the procuring of an abstract is not the kind of public work contemplated by said section; as nobody but a lawyer or person trained in the work can make an abstract and a lawyer has to certify to an abstract, and it would be against the ethics of the legal profession to permit attorneys to compete by advertisement in such work. As to the index to the family names, we respectfully submit that it is a mighty good! thing, and we think the board ought to have the right to install such index.</p> <p>As to the contention that the revenue of the county is not sufficient to pay for the purchase of such abstract there is no allegation in the bill of complaint that the board of supervisors is without authority to levy for the needed funds; and, as the board holds the purse strings of the county, it has the right to raise revenue, if it so desires, as long as it is within legal limits, and there are no allegations in the bill of complaint that if the board had to raise the revenue to purchase said abstract it would not exceed its legal limitations in so doing.</p> <p>We respectfully submit that the injunction granted in this cause should be dissolved.</p> <p>Taking up first the order or alleged order of the said board of supervisors with reference to what they term a complete set of records showing abstracts of title: The first point made against same was that there was no recital in the order that the hoard had found that “in jts opinion the interest of the county would be sub-served thereby..’ ’ This is a finding they must make before they may proceed. It is therefore jurisdictional, and it is a familiar rule in this state that the jurisdictional facts must appear from the recitals of the minutes or else the order has no validity. Hinton v.' Perry County, 84 Miss. 546; Bolivar County v. Coleman, 71 Miss. 8812. Counsel say rather plausibly that the omitted recitals were merely of a mental state, and that such is not of the facts such as the law1 insists upon. But nevertheless the mental conclusions must have existed, and the existence thereof should be made to appear, and inasmuch as presumptions do not aid such an order it would seem to follow as a logical result of the rule first cited that the recitals of the said jurisdictional matter should appear, from the minutes, for if not, they can be imported therein only by presumption, which latter we have said are not available to support an order of the board on jurisdictional matters. The rule is well understood now and is easy to follow. It could have been done in well understood terms easy to follow. It could have been done in this case easily if, as a matter of fact, the board did so find, and there is no occasion for engrafting upon it an exception which can serve no other purpose than to confuse a good and sound rule and to make it the basis for insistence upon other and further exceptions. So far as the order shows, the board may have done it with some other motive than to subserve the best interest of the county, and if their judgment and finding was that such action would subserve the best interest of the county they should go on record as the statute recites. Why should the law. aid by presumption here, in this particular .case when the rule is that it does not on these jurisdictional matters.</p> <p>It is not necessary, however, to spend any time on the foregoing point, because it must be clear that on the second point of attack on this order the holding must be that the order is insufficient. It will be observed that the bill alleges and the demurrer admits: “That no plans or specifications for the doing of said work had been made and filed by the said board in that it is not shown what particular system of abstract making is to be used and complainant avers that there are various and different systems for the making of abstracts, all considered by their sponsers as. being completé, and some systems are much more valuable and much more difficult to make than others and are much more convenient and usable when completed than others. The said order, or said invitation for bids Would be merely or when to be completed. It does not state whether the contract price is to be paid in installments or whether on completion. It does not state what bond is to be required if paid in installments conditioned upon the completion of said work. And complainant avers in short that there is nothing definite or specific upon ■which any intelligent bid may be made for said contract, and that any bid thereon would be in accordance with said order, or said invitation for bids would be merely a matter lying within the mind of the bidders as to the detail of the performance of the contract and as to the specifications of the abstract books, when made and completed. ’ ’</p> <p>Under section 361, Code 1906, it is provided that “All contracts by the board of supervisors for any public work not otherwise specifically provided for where the amount of the contract shall exceed fifty dollars before the notice shall be posted or published, the plans and specifications for the work shall be filed with the clerk and there remain.” Public work is every species and character of work done for the public and for which the taxpaying citizens are liable. 32 Cyc. 1256.</p> <p>Since, therefore, this is public work and no plans and specifications were made or'adopted and on file and it being alleged in the bill and confessed by the demurrer that same would cost “anywhere from twenty-five to fifty thousand dollars,” this alone would seem to dispose of this matter. Counties in awarding contracts and making expenditures for public work must strictly observe the statutory requirements. Leflore County v. Cannon, 81 Miss. 334.</p> <p>But even if there were no plans and specifications required, the order and notice for bids is void for indefiniteness. See 151 C. J., page 560, par. 244; Thomas v. Board, 79! So. 179, (3); Jones Bros. Hardivare Company v. Erg, 131 L. R. A. 353, and notes. We call particular attention to this last case as its opinion contains a resume of the reasons why the work to be done must be definitely described so as the exact basis of comparison of bids may be made, etc. We can add nothing to the above quoted allegations of the bill in this case. See also sections 362¡ and 3'6i9, Code ISO'S.</p> <p>But counsel contend that these laws do not apply to the procuring of an abstract as such is not the kind of public work contemplated by said laws; that abstracts can be made only by attorneys and that attorneys are not permitted to compete by advertisement. The statute is “all contracts by the board of supervisors,” etc. The court is therefore by counsel invited to engraft another exception, and in behalf of lawyers giving them some special privilege, we think no authority can be found for such an exception, and we believe the want of any substantial basis for it, to be applied as counsel suggests, is too apparent to require discussion in view of the consistent scheme of our laws on this matter of public contracts for any public work — all public work. We can well visualize the coldness of the reception such a proposition would receive in a Mississippi legislature, and legislation has covered this case. All these statutes as to public contracts and public work are in pan materia.</p> <p>The above points it would seem are entirely sufficient for an affirmance, and therefore we will not pursue those .further matters set out in the bill.</p>

Hon. Jas. Gr. McGtowen, Chancellor. Suit by Miss Tecoa Burnett against B¡. C. Nickle for the custody of a child. Decree for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. This case is one of almost every-day occurrence. Here we have a clean-cut contest for the custody of a child between the father of the child and a maiden aunt.

Hon. A. E. Weathersrt, Judge.. Action by J. J. Bourn against the Western Union Telegraph Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. In response to the suggestion of the court that the brief of the appellee as to the right of the appellee to recoper actual damages in the Way of expenses etc., should be replied to.

Hon. E. N. Thomas, Chancellor. Proceedings by George C. Cortright, administrator, to construe the -will of D. C. Casey, deceased. Prom a decree construing the will, the City Savings Bank & Trust Company of Vicksburg and another appeal.

Hon. W. M. Denny, Jr., Chancellor. Suit by W. H. Goff against ft. C.' Avent.f o remove cloud on title. Held: however, that notwithstanding the misdescription, the registry laws were applicable, and that a purchaser was put upon inquiry and charged with knowledge of the conveyance of the premises.” Devlin on Deeds, section 652, page 670. “If the premises are described by an impossible sectional number,, in the record of the deed, it follows…

W. L. Cbaneohd, Special Judge. Action by Mrs. Catherine A. Moody against the Lamar Life Insurance Company. Judgment for Plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Held: however,, that where the right to change the beneficiary is reserved, the policy can be assigned by the insured to a creditor as security of a debt.” Citing the following authorities: McNeil v. 'Chinn, 45 Tex. Civ. App. 551, 101 S. W. 465; Alba v. Provident Savingsi L. Assn.

W. F. Gee, Chancellor. Suit by W. J. Toler and another against R. J. Gannaway for specific performance. Decree for complainants, and defendant appeals. If the court will-take the trouble to read the authorities cited by appellees, with the facts in mind they will agree with me in miy contention that none of them can be taken as a precedent by this court in holding that Gannaway had waived any of his rights to declare the contract forfeited.

A. Y. Woodward', Chancellor. Suit by Jack G-. Coleman and others against Marshall Spiva and others. A dem|urrer to the bill was overruled, and defendants appeal. Held: at page 115=, that “It appears manifestly, to have been the testator’s intention to confer an unrestricted power of disposition.

Hon. H. H. El:more, Judge. Anthony Williams was convicted of murder, and he appeals. We contend that the defendant is either guilty of manslaughter or he is guilty of nothing. If he shot and killed the deceased in self-defense then he is guilty of nothing. If he shot the deceased while his blood was hot and before he had had time to cool because of the whipping he had been submitted to, then he is guilty of manslaughter.

Hon. C. P. Long, Judge. Action by J. W. Wardlaw against the Southern Railway Company. Peremptory instruction granted for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Nnder the facts in this case, the question of the negligence of the Railway Company should have been submitted to the jury.- It was clearly not a case for a peremptory instruction.

Hon. Lamar F. Easterling, Chancellor. Suit by the Belhaven Heights Company against the New Orleans Great Northern Railroad Company to… Held: that these words did not justify construction that an estate, defeasible in its nature, was conveyed. ’ ’ “To make an estate upon condition subsequent the grant must contain the condition in express words, or by clear implication, because such conditions are not favored in law.” An absolute deed in fee cannot be converted’ into a.…

Hon. R. W. Heidelberg, Judge. Replevin by T. J. White against the Miazza-Woods Construction Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. I thought the questions involved in this suit were settled in the cases of Richardson v. McLaurin, 69 Miss. 70, and Blalce-Bnmswiclc-Collender Co. v. Murphy, 89 Miss. 264.

Hon. W. M. Denny, Jr., Chancellor. Suit for confirmation of title by N. B. Harmon and others against M. C. Cox and the Dantzler Lumber Company, with cross-bill by the company against complainants. Bill and cross-bill dismissed and complainants and defendant Dantzler Lumber Company appeal.

J. L. Bates, Judge. Suit in justice court by John Weir against S. H. Cooper. On appeal to the circuit court, there was a peremptory instruction for defendant, and plaintiff landlord appeals. “Breach.'by renunciation,” justifies and terminates the contract and entitles the injured party in treating the contract as at an end and authorizes, the bringing of suit at once. See subject, “Contracts,” 9 Cye., pp. 6S5 and 636.

Son. Jas. - G. McG-owen, Chancellor. Bill for injunction by Courtney Bros, against the John Deer Plow Company, to enjoin levy of an execution upon a judgment for defendant against complainants, with cross-bill by defendant, ashing a decree for the true account of the debt, admitting the judgment to be excessive. From a decree for defendant, complainants appeal. Counsel for appellee misconstrues the main points at issue in the case at bar.

Hon. W. H. Potter, Judge. Ejectment by Jennie M. Jones and others against J. A. Carey. Trial without a jury, and judgment for defendant, and plaintiffs appeal:

•Appeal from the circuit court of Simpson county. Hon. W. H. Hughes. Judge. Action by E. L. Fondren against M. L. Flynt. Judgment in the circuit court, on appeal from justice court, in favor of plaintiff, and defendant appeals.

Appear from the circuit court of Jones County. Hon. R. S. Hard, Judge. Action by the Edward Eiler Lumber Company against J. M. Griffin. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Appellant in its brief concedes impliedly that the first question propounded bv the court should be answered in the affirmative. In other words there is an implied ad-' mission that the railroad company was the agent of the appellee to whom delivery could have been made.

Hon. Joe May, Chancellor. Suit by Delta Insurance & Realty Company and another against 'O. M. Benjamin, Sr., and others. Held: that the section under consideration to-wit: the one creating an exemption as to life insurance payable to the administrator or executor, engrafted an exception on the general rule making exempt property liable in the case of wife- or children, etc., and expressly held that the proceeds of such a policy inured to the heirs or…

Hon. Charles J. Bushing, Judge. Action by Mrs. Margaret Banfill against Calvin W. Byrd and others. Demurrers to declaration overruled and'verdict for defendants, motion for a new trial overruled, and defendant’s motion to correct the judgment so as to find for plaintiff in a nominal sum granted, and plaintiff appeals. .

Hon. Jas Gr. McG-owen, Chancellor. Proceeding by E. E Moore and others to probate In solemn form the last will of Jane T. Prichard, deceased, opposed by Cordelia E|. Parts and others. Proponents ’ motion for a peremptory instruction was denied, and they appeal.

Hon. A. T. Woodwar®, Chancellor. Suit to enjoin an execution by Mrs. M. E. Weems against certain defendants, in which J. W. Vowell was granted leave to intervene as a party, defendant. Held: as a matter of fact, that the husband, S-. C. Weems, was the agent and confidential advisor of Mrs. ML E. Weems, and that she was responsible for his actions. The chancery court twice held that an injunction sued out by. the Weems’ should be dissolved on the facts.

Hon. A. J. McIntyre, Chancellor. Suit by Mrs. Georgia Gathings and others against Roxie Howard and others to contest a will. Prom a decree establishing the will, contestants appeal.

Appal from chancery court of Tallahatchie County. Hon. W. F. Gee, Chancellor. Petition by the Union & Plainters’' Bank & Trust Company for admission' to probate in common form of the last -will of Andrew Jackson Rylee, deceased.

Hon. I). M. Miller, Judge. Action on a note by the Eureka, Bank against R. E. Burton. Verdict for plaintiff for the principal, disallowing interest and attorney’s fees, and defendant appeals and plaintiff takes a cross-appeal. The bank of Eureka sued R. C. Burton on a note in the circuit court of Copiah county.

Hon. Chas. Lee Crum, Judge. Will Bugg was convicted of a violation of an ordinance of the Town of Houlka, by unlawfully and feloniously stealing meat, and he appeals. 1. The first assignment of error is the failure of the town to prove a valid ordinance. No valid ordinance was proved. The mayor was not on the board when the alleged ordinance was passed, nor did he have the minutes of the board showing the passage of the ordinance.

Hon. W. H. Hughes, Judge. Suit by M. J. Moody against the Finkbine Lumber ■Company. From judgment for defendant, plaintiff) appeals.

Hon. Lamar F. Easterling, Chancellor. Attachment in chancery by Stokes Y. Robertson, State Revenue Agent, ag’ainst the Chicagu, Rock Island & Pacific Railroad Company, with the Illinois Central Railroad Company and another as garnishees to recover taxes due by the first-named company to the state. Canse heard on bill and answers, and decree for complainant-for a penalty, with direction to first-named company to make t discovery of its ¡gross earnings, and it appeals.

Hon. J. T. Garraway, Special Judge. Action by Albert Mackie & Co., Limited, against S. S. Dale & Sons. Held: does not apply in an action by the vendee for breach of contract; and the departure by the vendor of goods from the terms of the original contract, within the statute of frauds, as to the route over which the goods are to be shipped, may be ratified by the vendee without writing ; so where a vendor, under a written contract of sale…

Hon. R. S. Hall, Judge. Petition for habeas corpus by N. K. Ramsey against A. iE. Haubison, sheriff of F'orrest County, Petitioner discharged from custody and the Sheriff granted an appeal. Held: I think, to be within the condemnation of section 28. H’ere thie imprisonment is both indefinite and at the will of the chancellor who imposed it. There is nothing but his own death that can be pointed to as surely terminating his stay in jail, nothing but the writ of habeas corpus.

Hon. R. E. Jackson, Judge. Proceedings by L. C. Miller against Mrs. Ma,ry Johnson for the grant of a private right of way over certain lands. From a finding of damages, petitioner appealed to the circuit court. Judgment for Mrs. Mary Johnson, and L. C. Miller appeals. Without an appeal bond the circuit court was utterly without jurisdiction; to cite authorities on this elementary proposition would be superogative.

Hon. Z. A. Brantley, Special Chancellor. Held: Wannenwetsch v. Baltimore City, 111 Md. 39; Methodist Church v. Baltimore “City, -6 Grill. 391; Hazelhwrst v. Baltimore, 37 Md. 220; Page v. Baltimore, 34 Md. 558; Baltimore y. Johnson, 123 Md. 326; Land Company v. City of Des Moines, 144 Iowa, 026; Code, secs. 823, 824, 829; Nixon v. Burlington, 141 Iowa, 316; Reed y. Cedar Rapids,…

Hon. W. H. Hughes, Judge; Action by S. Morris against Covington Qounty. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.

Appear from tlie circuit court of Jefferson county. Hon. R. E. Jackson, Judge. Suit by Mrs. A. M'. Stewart and others against Mrs. Bertha Kraus and others for trespass on lands and for the taking of crops. Verdict for plaintiffs for actual and punitive damages, and the defendants appeal.

Hon. R. E. Jackson, Judge. B. Tillery presented a claim to the board of supervisors of Wilkinson county and after its disallowance, filed with the clerk of the board a petition for an appeal from the order, whereupon the clerk sent to the circuit court a record showing the claim and the order rejecting it, and thereafter claimant petitioned for a writ of certiorari to the clerk of the board of supervisors, requiring him to send up an alleged unsigned bill of exceptions as…

Hon. W. H. Potter, Judge. Mandamus by Willis Walley against W. J. Miller, Auditor, to compel issuance of a warrant. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. I must confess that I follow the reasoning of the lower court with very great difficulty. As has already been stated in order for the writ of mandamus to issue, there must be an appropriation bill, out of which the warrant could be paid.

Hon. Jas. G. MciGowen, Chancellor. Bill by R. C. Carter and others, as stockholders or depositors in the Merchants & Farmers Bank of Oxford, Miss., against Duke M. Kimbrough and others, as directors, eta, to recover money lost through their negligence resulting in the hank’s insolvency.

Hon. Lamak. F. Eastekling, Chancellor. Suit by the City of Jackson against the First National Bank, in which, after its disclaimer and dismissal as to it, the bill was amended and filed against the Union Savings Bank & Trust Company. Motion by defendant to withdraw its answer and for leave to file special pleas denied and decree for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.

<p>Appeal from the circuit court of Harrison county.</p> <p>Hon. D. M. Graham, Judge.</p> <p>Action between Clozelle Ladnier and the Ingram Day Lumber Company. Judgment for the latter, and the former appeals.</p>

Appear from the chancery court of Leflore county. Hon. W. F. Gee, chancellor. Suit by W. E. Humphrey, executor, against the inter-Southern Life Insurance Company and others, for discovery and an accounting. Demurrer- to bill overruled, and defendants appeal.

Hon. W. H. Potter, Judge. Suit by the city of Jaclrson against P. W. Kenny and others to enforce an improvement lien. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals. Section 3413 is essentially different from 3411, 3412, in that section 3413 does not require a special assessment before the -city can enforce this lien. When the property owners sign a petition requesting the laying of its sidewalk, it obviates the necessity of giving notices to these owners.

Hon. T. B. Carroll, Judge. Action before a justice of the peace by the West-Point Motor Car Company against E. E. McGhee. Judgment against defendant and the sureties on his forthcoming bond, and he appealed to the circuit court which on motion dismissed the suit, and plaintiff appeals. Opposing counsel relies upon Code 190-6, section 2724, Hem. Code, section 2223, as construed in Gibson v. 'Mills, 95 Miss. 726; Cam v. Simpson, 53 Miss. 521.

<p>Appeal from the chancery court of Calhoun county.</p> <p>How. J. G. McGowaw, Chancellor.</p> <p>On motion to correct judgment.</p>

Hon. A. J. McLatjrin, Judge. On suggestion of error. The appellee does not bring this suit in her individual capacity but she sues as the administratrix of the estate of Mrs. J. L. Pool deceased. In order that she may maintain her suit as administratrix, it is necessary that she make profert of her letters of administration before she can recover in this capacity; this she has failed to do.

<p>Appeal from the circuit court of Grenada county.</p> <p>Hon. T. L. Lamb, Judge.</p> <p>Allen J ones was convicted of having put poison in the food of another, and he appeals.</p>

Hon. H. H. Elmore, Judge. Action between George Buchanan and the Sunflower Compress Company. Judgment for the latter, and the former appeals. As shown by the transcript of the record, attorneys for the appellant, by letter bearing date October 31, 1919, addressed to H. B. Levy, Court Beporter, Lexington, Mississippi, requesting him to file a transcript of the record in this case stating that it was their intention to appeal it to the supreme court.

Hon. G-. .E. Williams, Chancellor. Suit hy Mollie Roach Ridgeway and others against F. J. Jones, executor of Samuel Jones, deceased, to have defendant directed to distribute the estate. Held: that relators are entitled to have the relief they ask against the action taken by the circuit judge in the premises, and that the order entered should he modified as prayed in the petition.

Hon. W. H. Hughes, Judge. Suit by the Ingram Day Lumber Company against the Kola Lumlber Company. Judgment for defendant on a directed verdict, and plaintiff appeals. We will now consider the law pleaded by appellee as an excuse for non-performance. See Act June 15, 1917, section 3115', 1/16 D. IT. S., Complied Statutes, temporary supplement, 1917, chapter 29.

<p>Appeal from the circuit court of Humphreys county.</p> <p>Hon. H. H. Elmore, Judge.</p> <p>Action between J. R. Young and H. H. Alexander and others. Judgment for the latter, and the former appeals.</p>

<p>Appeal from circuit court of Jefferson Davis county.</p> <p>Hon. W]. A. Si-iipman Special Judge.</p> <p>Marshall Herring was convicted of murder, and he appeals.</p>

Hon. C. Lee Crum, Judge. Dr. Eli Powell appealed to the circuit court from the action of the board of supervisors of Calhoun county in fixing his salary as. county health officer., Case was heard on appeal without a jury. From a judgment increasing the salary, the board of supervisors appeals. The question of the salary of the county health officer has been before this court on three previous occasions.

Hon. Y. J. Stricken, Chancellor. Suit for injunction by Henry J. Middleton and others . against Lincoln county. Injunction dissolved, and complainants appeal. The bill of complaint in this cause is full, and with the foregoing summary, is really in itself sufficient to present complainant’s contentions so that this court will see their soundness.

Hon. D. M. Russell, chancellor. Suit by I. N. Ellis against Mack Sutton and others. From an interlocutory decree rendered in vacation, dissolving a temporary injunction and awarding defendants damages for the wrongful suing out of the injunctiou, plaintiff appeals. We read, in 2 Encyclopaedia Pleadings & Practice, p. 246, the following: “Estoppel.

Hon. C. P. Long, Judge. Action by Mrs. Love Jobe against the Mobile & Ohio Railroad Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.

Appeal fom circuit court of Panola county. Hon. E. D. Dinkins, Judge. Suit for mandamus by the Town of Crenshaw against C. P. Jackson and others, members of Board of Supervisors of Panola County. .Suit dismissed, and the plaintiff appeals.

Hon. Joe. May, Chancellor. Attachment suit by S'. S. Neblett and others against W. P. Richardson. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant appeals. Held: “Asa general rule, that distribution of the estate of a deceased person must be made by the probate court, and through the medium! of an administrator or executor; yet there are cases in which a court of chancery will exercise jurisdiction, and one of the cases is, where no administration has been granted in this state.

Hon. W. H. Potter, Judge. Suit by Smith K. Journey against the Alabama & Vicksburg Bailway Company. Demurrer to plea in abatement sustained, and judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.

Hon. G. C. Tann, Chancellor. Suit by O. B. Sims against Mrs. Henrietta M. Sims to annul a marriage, or in the alternative, for a divorce. From an interlocutory decree awarding defendant alimony pendente lite, plaintiff appeals. The marriage between appellant and appellee was void absolutely and not merely voidable.

'Hon. W. J. Craneord, Special Judge. Action by James McLeod against the Cecil Lumber Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals, It is submitted by tlie appellant that tbe granting of tbe first two instructions requested by tbe appellee in the court below so clearly constituted reversible error under the facts of this case and the previous decisions of this court, that the matter is not susceptible of serious debate.

Hon. Joe May, Chancellor. Suit by Mrs. Hannah L. Coulson against Floyd A. Stevens. From a decree dismissing an original bill, plaintiff appeals. The evidence conclusively'showsi that the words “or bearer” were inserted in the note by the stenographer of the Coulson Lumber Company at the bank cashier’s request, and that neither had any authority to do so; and the complainant, Mrs. Coulson, had no knowledge of this change.

<p>1. Cancellation on Instruments. Deed will not be set aside because grantor did not understand it, in absence of timely application.</p> <p>Where a deed given in consideration of the support of the grantor during life provides no lien, nor forfeiture on condition broken, or for failure to perform, but is absolute in form, it will not be set aside, where no timely application was made, on the ground that the grantor did not understand the terms of the deed as written, where the deed was on record.</p> <p>2. Deeds. Deed for support of grantor nof canceled for breach, of agreement to support.</p> <p>Where a deed is given in consideration of an agreement to support grantor, but containing no provision for forfeiture for failure to perform agreement, and reserving no lien in the deed to. secure performance of consideration, it will not be canceled in equity for failure to furnish support. Lowrey' v. Lowrey, 111 Miss. 153, 71 So. 309; Lee v. McMorries, 107 Miss. 889, 66 So. 278, L. R. A. 1915B, 1069. Dixon v. Milling, 102 Miss. 449, 59 So. 804, 43 L. R. A. (N. S.) 916.</p>

Hon. W. H. Hughes, Judge. Action byi W. H. Alexander, administrator of Julius A. Alexander, deceased, against the New York Life Insurance Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. It is admitted that the Ahgust 8, 1918, premium on the policy of insurance sued on, was not paid or tendered when due, and was not paid or tendered at any time thereafter.

IJon. R. S. Hall, Judge. Action by F. S. Dyle against J. M. Griffin for wages. From a judgment for plaintiff for part of the relief sought, he appeals.. As we see it there is but one question in this record, and if this question is answered affirmatively then the judgment below was error; if otherwise, then it is correct so far as the giving of the peremptory instruction is concerned.

Host. W. A. Alcorn, Judge. Action by J. L. Dowdy agiainst the Yazoo So Mississippi Valley Railroad Company. On- plaintiff’s death, the suit was revived in the name of E. L. Mothershed, administrator, and from a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.

Hon. L. B. Jones, Special Judge. Habeas corpus by Mrs. Bonnie E. Hudgins against W. E. Haynie, for tbe recovery of the possession of a… Held: however, that the decree of any tribunal as to the custody1 of a child was never final but the same tribunal or any ' other where the child was either temporarily or permanently staying, might consider the question upon the facts then existing, and looking at the welfare of the child, determine whether any and what change would be…

Hon. A. J. M'oLaurin, Judge. Action by Mrs. Ida Mae Alexander and others against the New Deemer Manufacturing Company and others for wrongful death of her husband. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendants appeal. A peremptory instruction should have been given for appellants by the court below. There is no evidence showing or tending to show that the appellants knew or had reason to believe that the tree would fall.