Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

93 Miss. 578

Howze v. Whitehead

Mississippi Supreme Court

Decided October 15, 1908

Mississippi Supreme Court · decided 1908-10-15

From the circuit court of Montgomery county. Hon. J. T. Dunn, Judge. Mrs. Howze, appellant, was plaintiff in the court below; Whitehead, appellee, was defendant there. From a judgment in defendant’s favor plaintiff appealed to the supreme court. Appellant’s declaration alleged that she was the owner of a brick storehouse in the town of Winona, erected in 1868 by one Devlin and which was one hundred and twenty feet in length.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1908-10-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently February 1962

4 state decisions

101908191019201930194019501960decided

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 →

Calhoon, J.,

¶1delivered the opinion of the court.

¶2We are unable to see in the record any valid reason why Whitehead is not liable at law for contribution to the expense *582of tbe erection by Mrs. Howze óf a party wall. Whitehead joined in the party wall, having previously declined contribution on the sole ground that he did not then desire to rebuild and did not know when he might so desire, making no intimation of any right in him toi join in the wall. This wall had been one-hundred and twenty feet long. The Moore property adjoined one side of it for forty feet. This condition of things had been in existence for a great number of years. This forty feet of property was destroyed by fire and Mrs. Howze reconstructed that forty feet which joined her property and Whitehead’s, being the Moore lot. Subsequently Whitehead used that party wall for his own purpose when he concluded to rebuild on his forty feet, and, having done so, he was liable to contribution toward the cost of that wall.

¶3After divers pleas there was, at the trial, a plea to the effect that there had been a written agreement between Mrs. Howze, through her agent, one Acee, and Whitehead, that if he permitted the erection of that wall on the spot where it had stood for so many years he should not be called on for contribution. In reference to this it is only necessary to say that there is no proof in this record which is at all sufficient in law that such agreement was eter entered into by Mrs. Howze, or by her authorization. In point of fact, it is shown that Acee, now dead, who is alleged to have been the agent of Mrs. Howze, was not in the state when the agreement was said to have been entered into. The agreement could only be established by showing authority from Mrs. Howze to Acee to make it. It surely could not be presumed that he had any power from her in reference to real estate transactions because he had been collecting rents for her from the tenants of houses under lease. Mrs. Howze specifically denies any such authority to Acee.

¶4Whatever hardship may be entailed by the result in this case, we are satisfied that under the law the judgment should be reversed and remanded:

¶5Reversed.

/93/miss/578 · .json · Public domain