Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

194 So. 2d 495

Hiatt v. Barker

Mississippi Supreme Court

Decided January 30, 1967

Mississippi Supreme Court · decided 1967-01-30

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently December 1998

3 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“an appeal cannot be taken from a consent decree or judgment of a trial court by one of the parties to the consent decree or judgment...”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 724 So. 2d 911 - Rushing v. Rushing

Relies on Guthrie v. Guthrie · Hunter v. Stanford

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1967-01-30

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1ON MOTION TO DISMISS

RODGERS, Justice.

¶2A motion to dismiss an appeal from a consent decree entered in the Chancery Court of Forrest County, Mississippi, has been filed and considered by this Court. The consent decree involves the custody of minor children, and the chancellor permitted an appeal with supersedeas.

¶3We are of the opinion, and so hold, that an appeal cannot be taken from a consent decree or judgment of a trial court by one of the parties to the consent decree or judgment. Miss. Code Ann. § 1147 (1956); Guthrie v. Guthrie, 226 Miss. 190, 84 So.2d 158 (1955); Hunter v. Stanford, 198 Miss. 299, 22 So.2d 166 (1945).

¶4The motion is therefore sustained, and the appeal to this Court from the consent decree is dismissed without prejudice to appropriate proceedings in the trial court to determine the factual issue with reference to the allegations that the appellant did not consent to the decree, and for such further proceedings as may be necessary to determine the custody of the children involved.

¶5Appeal dismissed.

All Justices concur.
/194/so2d/495 · .json · Public domain