Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1947-10-27
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently January 2010
10 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
The suggestion of error raises the point that subsequent to the final decree under the original bill, part of the property involved was sold by J.H. Wilkinson and Wife to certain grantees. Code 1942, Section 1392. It is now for the first time argued that our judgment should not encompass these grantees, at least one of whom purchased part of the lands after such decree and prior to the petition of defendants for rehearing.
¶2The contention was not assigned, presented or argued upon the appeal. H.E. Wilkinson and Wife, grantees in one of such deeds, were parties to the suit upon appeal. It was said in State ex rel. Suddoth v. Tann, 172 Miss. 162, *281158 So. 177, 159 So. 539, 540: "It is a rule of practice in nearly all appellate tribunals, and certainly so in this court, that a point not argued at all is to be taken as waived." (Citing authorities.) We must therefore forbear now to consider the contention.
¶3Under the circumstances, we need not examine the effect, upon the issue of good faith, of the lis pendens notice filed prior to both deeds.
