Davis v. Davis
Citations
- 65 Miss. 498
Syllabus
<p>1. Chancery Practice. Several suits between same parlies. Injunction. Cause of action.</p> <p>In 1882, W. filed a bill to obtain Ms share of the title to a tract of land which he claimed had been bought by him and H. as equal partners, but which the latter had caused to be deeded to himself individually. While this suit was pending, W. filed another bill against H. to secure his share of the rents of the land referred to for the year 1883. H. then filed a bill against W. to enjoin the prosecution of the latter sMt brought by W. Held, that W. had the right to institute the suit for his share of the rent of 1883, the receipt by H. of rents for that year being the accrual of a new right of action.</p> <p>2. Same. Suit for injunction ; when necessary.</p> <p>But if the institution by W. of the suit for rent was unnecessary, the suit for injunction by H. was equally unnecessary; the proper course for the latter being to defend the suit for rent, if he wished to oppose it.</p> <p>3. Same. Continuance. Dissolution of imjunctim, and damages.</p> <p>The fact that W. asked for and obtained a continuance of the injunction suit, until the determination of the suit for title to the land, did not prejudice his right to demand, after the disposition of that case, a dissolution of the injunction and damages.</p> <p>4. Same. ' Decree far title to land. Suit for rent. Des adjudicala.</p> <p>The final adjudication in W.’s favor of his suit for title, above referred to, without any decree as to the rents of the land accruing after the filing of the bill and before final decree, (he. not having presented any claim thereto), did not make the question of his right to such rents res adjudicate, nor preclude him from the right to recover the same in another suit.</p> <p>5. Same. Matter that might have been, adjudicated. Whether res adjudicate.</p> <p>A matter is not res adjudicate simply because it might have been, but was not, included in the adjudication of a case disposed of, if in fa
Judges: Campbell
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
5 cases in this archive cite this case.
- VanZandt v. VANZANDTMississippi Supreme Court· 1956-04-02· cited 41×
- BUSH, ET UX. v. City of LaurelMississippi Supreme Court· 1958-10-13· cited 23×
- Gerald v. FosterMississippi Supreme Court· 1964-11-09· cited 2×
- Tyson v. PathmanN.D. Mississippi· 1988-06-02· cited 2×
- Paine v. WilemonMississippi Supreme Court· 1956-03-12· cited 1×
Cites
1 case in this archive is cited by this case.
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.