From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lott v. Windham

Supreme Court of Mississippi, In Banc
Oct 27, 1941
4 So. 2d 342 (Miss. 1941)

Summary

In Lott v. Windham, 191 Miss. 849, 4 So.2d 342, the appeal was from an order sustaining a special demurrer, and the granting of the same was held to have been improvident.

Summary of this case from Prime v. Smith

Opinion

No. 34703.

October 27, 1941.

APPEAL AND ERROR.

Where special demurrer set up that complaint which contained prayer for cancellation or reformation of mineral deeds was multifarious and repugnant, interlocutory decree sustaining the demurrer adjudicated merely a "procedural matter" and would not settle "controlling principles" involved in the cause within statute relating to appeals from interlocutory decrees, and, hence purported appeal from the decree was not authorized (Code 1930, secs. 14, 396).

APPEAL from the chancery court of Covington county, HON. BEN STEVENS, Chancellor.

E.L. Dent, of Collins, for appellant.

W.U. Corley, of Collins, for appellee.


Appellants filed their bill against the several grantees in certain separate mineral deeds praying for their cancellation or reformation on the ground that they constituted clouds upon title of appellants. These deeds with one exception had been executed to the respective defendants by appellants who alleged mistake, absence of consideration and other grounds.

A special demurrer was filed setting up that "the said complainant (sic) is multifarious and repugnant in its allegations." Upon the same grounds the trial court sustained the demurrer and allowed an appeal "to settle the principles of law involved in this case."

The appeal is improvident and cannot be entertained. Ward v. Whitfield, 64 Miss. 754, 761, 2 So. 493; Ames v. Williams, 73 Miss. 772, 19 So. 673; Bierce v. Grant, 91 Miss. 791, 796, 45 So. 876; Liberty Trust Co. v. Planters' Bank, 155 Miss. 721, 124 So. 341; Love v. Love, 158 Miss. 785, 131 So. 280; Stirling v. Whitney Nat. Bank, 170 Miss. 674, 150 So. 654; Wirtz v. Gordon, 175 Miss. 726, 168 So. 74; Carothers v. Bank of Baldwyn, 158 Miss. 602, 131 So. 111; Standard Lumber Mfg. Co. v. Roddis Lumber Veneer Co., 168 Miss. 202, 151 So. 152; Marquette Cement Mfg. Co. v. New Amsterdam Cas. Co., 174 Miss. 843, 165 So. 615; Farmers Merchants Bank v. Rushing, 175 Miss. 826, 167 So. 784; Breland v. Lemastus, 183 Miss. 150, 183 So. 500.

The demurrer raised and the interlocutory decree thereon adjudicated merely a procedural matter (Section 396, Code 1930) and an appeal therefrom not only would not settle all controlling substantive principles involved in the cause, as contemplated by Section 14, Code 1930, but, indeed, none at all. The appeal therefore must be dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.


Summaries of

Lott v. Windham

Supreme Court of Mississippi, In Banc
Oct 27, 1941
4 So. 2d 342 (Miss. 1941)

In Lott v. Windham, 191 Miss. 849, 4 So.2d 342, the appeal was from an order sustaining a special demurrer, and the granting of the same was held to have been improvident.

Summary of this case from Prime v. Smith
Case details for

Lott v. Windham

Case Details

Full title:LOTT et al. v. WINDHAM et al

Court:Supreme Court of Mississippi, In Banc

Date published: Oct 27, 1941

Citations

4 So. 2d 342 (Miss. 1941)
4 So. 2d 342

Citing Cases

Prime v. Smith

II. An appeal to the Supreme Court from an interlocutory order does not lie when only procedural questions…

Universal Life Ins. Co. v. Keller

From what has been said it is at once apparent that the questions presented by the special demurrers raise…