Proctor v. Hart
Citations
- 72 Miss. 288
Syllabus
<p>Limitation. Right extinguished. New note. Revival of vendor’s lien. Code 1893, l 3755.</p> <p>Under ?¿ 3755, code 1893, providing that the completion of the period for barring an action extinguishes the right as well as the remedy, but the former legal obligation- shall be a sufficient consideration to uphold a new promise based thereon, where a note for land, in which a vendor’s lien is reserved, is barred, the giving of a new note does not revive the lien or create a new lien, although the new note recites that it is for the purchase price of land ‘ ‘ on which a vendor’s lien is retained,” and “in lieu of, and in renewal of,” the old note.</p>
Judges: Woods
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
10 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Grant v. StateMississippi Supreme Court· 1996-12-19· cited 16×
- Anderson-Tully Co. v. BrownMississippi Supreme Court· 1980-05-28· cited 10×
- Temples v. First National Bank of LaurelMississippi Supreme Court· 1960-10-24· cited 9×
- Hawkins v. Southern Pipe and Supply Co.Mississippi Supreme Court· 1972-03-20· cited 8×
- McDaniel v. ShortMississippi Supreme Court· 1921-10-15· cited 7×
- Deposit Guar. Nat. Bank v. BiglaneMississippi Supreme Court· 1983-04-13· cited 6×
- First Nat. Bank of Columbus v. DrummondMississippi Supreme Court· 1982-08-18· cited 3×
- First National Bank of Columbus v. Shelby DrummondFirst Circuit· 1982-09-27· cited 2×
- Keller v. Citizens Bank, ColumbiaMississippi Supreme Court· 1981-05-13· cited 2×
- Alta Woods Park, Inc. v. Central Surety & InsuranceMississippi Supreme Court· 1952-03-10
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.