Wright v. Brander
Wright v. Brander
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the court.
The question here presented is very different from that decided in Wright v. Frank, 61 Miss. 32, and no reason is perceived why the cross-bill of the appellee is not maintainable. None of the difficulties which existed to prevent the maintenance of the cross-bill in the case cited are found in this, and the cross-bill contains matter of equity cognizance as to which an original bill might be maintained. It avers that the “ Goff” plantation was conveyed to the appellant by the complainant in the cross-bill on his assuming to pay the debt due Frank, complainant in the original bill, for the land conveyed to complainant in the cross-bill in the partition between her and the defendant, Wright. It does not appear that the Goff Place has been disposed of by Wright, and on the case made by the cross-bill Wright should, as between him and the appellee, be decreed to pay what may be found to be due to Frank.
Decree affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- J. H. Wright v. Jennie E. Brander
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Chancery. Enforcement of vendors’ lien. Agreement between vendees. Oross-bill to enforce same. W. and B., being joint owners of two plantations, known as the Boykin Place and the Goff Place, bought jointly a tract of land contiguous to the former place and which they added to it. F., the vendor, reserved a lien for the purchase-money, and upon their failure to pay he filed a bill to enforce his lien. After the commencement of the suit, W. and B. partitioned their lands, W. taking the Goff Place and B. taking the Boykin Place, mutual deeds of conveyance being executed accordingly. W., by agreement in writing, assumed the debt due F., but failed to fulfill his agreement; and B., in answer to the original bill, made her answer a cross-bill against W., in which she sought to compel him to pay the debt due F., by subjecting the Goff Place to sale therefor. W. demurred to the cross-bill for want of equity and as being an improper pleading in the suit. Held, that the cross-hill is a proper pleading in this suit, and, the facts therein being conceded, W. may be compelled, as between himself and B., to pay whatever amount may be found due F.