Stricklin v. Cooper

Mississippi Supreme Court April 15, 1878

Stricklin v. Cooper, 55 Miss. 624 (Miss. 1878)

Campbell

Opinion of the Court

Campbell, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

As against Purvis, who had purchased the land from Stricklin, it was erroneous to take as the basis of computing the sum for which the land was chargeable, by virtue of the lien reserved in the deed conveying it to Stricklin, the amount of the judgment which had been rendered against him by the Circuit Court on the note for the purchase-money, to secure which the lien had be.en reserved in the deed. All that the land is'liable for in the hands of Purvis, who is not a party to the note, is the principal and interest of the note. The judgment against Stricklin on the note includes the interest which had accrued on the note up to the time of its rendition, and computing interest on the judgment compounds interest, which is not allowable as against Purvis.

*626We clo not perceive any other error in the record ; but for this the decree will be reversed and cause remanded, unless counsel will cause the computation to be made and the proper decree to be entered here,' which may be done.

Reference

Full Case Name: W. A. Stricklin v. George W. Cooper
Cited By: 2 cases
Status: Published
Syllabus: Vendor’s Lien. Sow enforced against purchaser from vendee. N. sold and conveyed a tract of land to S., who paid a part of the purchase-money and gave his note for the balance. A lien was reserved in the deed for the unpaid purchase-money. The note not being- paid at maturity, 2ST. brought suit thereon for the use of C., recovered judgment against S., and had execution issued, which was returned nulla bona. In the meantime P. had purchased the land from S. After the return of the execution, O. filed his bill to enforce the lien reserved in the deed against the land for the unpaid purchase-money. The chancery court decreed a.sale of the land for the payment of the amount due by the judgment against S., with interest thereon. Seld, that the land, in the hands of P., was only chargeable with the principal of the note, and simple interest thereon; and that, as the judgment included interest on the note to the date of its rendition, and the decree charged interest on the judgment, the decree was erroneous because it compounded the interest.