Champenois & Son v. Fort

Citations

• 45 Miss. 355

Syllabus

<p>1. Appropriation op payments. —Where a party, indebted on several accounts, makes a payment, be has a right to direct its appropriation, if he fails to do so the creditor may, or the law win.</p> <p>2. Chancery court—jurisdiction —amount in controversy. —A bill was filed in equity to enforce a lien, given to secure a note for $200, and also to make the lien cover an open account for subsequent advances. On the face of the bill it appeared that, if a credit, which had been improperly made on the open account, had been made on the note, where of right it belonged, the amount secured by the lien would have been reduced below §30. On demurrer to the jurisdiction, the court declined passing on the question, as to whether the chancery court, under the act of 1870, has jurisdiction of oases under $50, but maintain the jurisdiction in this case, on the ground that the amount which determines jurisdiction is the $200 involved in the suit, and not the sum which may be finally recovered.</p> <p>3. Same—practice—poreclosing a lien. — The chancery court may proceed to foreclose a lien, though only a part of the property, bound by the lien, is sequestered.</p> <p>i. Same—remedy op an innocent purchaser,where thebe is other property ENOUGH TO SATISFY THE LIEN — PLEADING — CROSS-BILL AND DEMURRER. —If an innocent purchaser, for value, of property held by a valid lien, knows that the debtor, under the lien, has other property to which the lien attaches, he may protect his purchase, not by demurring to the creditor’s bill to foreclose his lien upon it, but by a cross biU, pointing out the other property of sufficient value to satisfy the lien.</p> <p>5. Same — same—A bill bad in part. — Where creditors, by abill, seek to enforce a lien given to secure a note, and also prefer a claim for subsequent advances, the circumstance that they prefer the claim for advances does not deprive them of a remedy for that part of their debt, which is protected by the security.</p>