Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

81 F. 1003

Docket No. 555.

Davis v. Davis

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided May 4, 1897.)

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1897-05-04

<p>Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United 'States for the Southern District of Mississippi. This was a suit in equity by W. J. Davis against H. L. Davis and others to establish an equitable title to, and recover possession of, the one undivided half of the Homo Chitto plantation, in Adams county, Miss. The circuit court sustained a general demurrer to the hill, hut on appeal this decree was reversed by this court, and the cause remanded for further proceedings. See 18 C. C. A. 438, 72 Fed. 81. The court below, having accordingly heard the cause upon the merits, dismissed the bill because the plaintiff had failed to show any right to the relief sought. From this decree the complainant has now appealed.</p>

1 counsel of record

Relies on Davis v. Davis

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1897-05-04

¶1Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United 'States for the Southern District of Mississippi. This was a suit in equity by W. J. Davis against H. L. Davis and others to establish an equitable title to, and recover possession of, the one undivided half of the Homo Chitto plantation, in Adams county, Miss. The circuit court sustained a general demurrer to the hill, hut on appeal this decree was reversed by this court, and the cause remanded for further proceedings. See 18 C. C. A. 438, 72 Fed. 81. The court below, having accordingly heard the cause upon the merits, dismissed the bill because the plaintiff had failed to show any right to the relief sought. From this decree the complainant has now appealed.

¶2T. A. McWillie, for appellant. Edward Mayes, for appellee.

¶3Before PARDEE and McCORMICK, Circuit Judges, and NEWMAN, District Judge.

¶4PER CURIAM.

¶5The facts established by the evidence are not sufficient to warrant the finding that Samuel B. Newman, Sr., had actual notice of W. J. Davis’ equity in the lands in controversy, nor to warrant the presumption that Mrs. Mattie L. Newman, the mortgagee, knew, or ought to have known, of any such equity. The decree appealed from is affirmed.

/81/f1d/1003 · .json · Public domain