Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

73 Miss. 434

Hernandez v. Aaron

Mississippi Supreme Court

Decided October 15, 1895

Mississippi Supreme Court · decided 1895-10-15

From the chancery court of Wilkinson county. Hon. Claude Pintard, Chancellor. , This was a proceeding by the appellee, Aaron, against the appellant, as a nonresident, by attachment in chancery, to compel an accounting in respect to certain cotton delivered to him by one Hills, a debtor of complainant, and for a decree in favor of: complainant for so much of said cotton or its proceeds as might be necessary to satisfy his demand against Hills, to. secure which the complainant…

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1895-10-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently February 1967

2 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions

2018951900191019201930194019501960decided

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.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Woods, J.,

¶1delivered the opinion of the court.

¶2The gravamen of complainant’s bill is that he held a lien under two duly recorded deeds of trust in the proper office in Wilkinson county on certain cotton raised or owned by one J. J. Hills, and that, with the knowledge and connivance of appellant, this cotton was delivered to appellant, in said Wilkinson county, and the same was converted, by the appellant, into money, or its equivalent, whereby he became liable to appellee for its value.

¶3The evidence fails to support the bill. On the contrary, it appears that the appellant was the cotton factor in New Orleans, La., of said Hills, and that Hills shipped the cotton in question to appellant from Tarbert Landing, in Wilkinson county, to Hernandez, his cotton factor in New Orleans, “for account of J. J. Hills. ’ ’ Appellant was not aware of this shipment when it was made, nor was he informed of appellee’s liens under his trust deeds until after the cotton had been sold in New Orleans. Pie did not receive the cotton at all in Wilkinson county. It was shipped to New Orleans for Hills’ account, and remained the property of Hills until actually sold. Bonner v. Marsh, 10 Smed. & M., 376; Dickman v. Williams, 50 Miss., 500; Chaffe v. Railroad Co., 59 Miss., 182.

¶4Reversed and bill dismissed.

/73/miss/434 · .json · Public domain