Brooks v. Martin
Mississippi Supreme Court
Brooks v. Martin, 62 Miss. 217 (Miss. 1884)
Campbell
Brooks v. Martin
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the court.
The only question presented by this appeal is as to the action of the court below in sustaining Martin’s demurrer to the cross-bill of the appellant, and that was correct, because the cross-bill does not contain any cause of action. It shows that the appellant apprehends that he may at a future day have a cause of action against Martin, but it is not allowable to make that the foundation of a present suit. If the appellant had the right to maintain an original bill against Martin by reason of the matters embraced in' this litigation, he might maintain a cross-bill, but, as stated, it does not appear that he had any right of action when he exhibited his cross-bill.
Decree affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- E. D. Brooks v. Jackson Martin
- Cited By
- 1 case
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- 1. Chancery Practice. Bill to redeem, land. Oross-bill against co-defendant for breach of warranty. A defendant against whom a bill has been filed to redeem land held by him as an equitable mortgagee under an absolute deed with warranty of title, has no right to file a cross-bill against his grantor, who is a co-defendant, to obtain a decree for the amount which may be due him on account of the breach of such grantor’s warranty of title, in the event the complainant in the original bill shall be permitted to redeem the land. 2. Same. Oross-bill upon contemplated cause of action. A defendant in chancery cannot maintain a cross-bill against a- co-defendant (nor could he maintain an original bill) upon a contemplated cause of action to arise if the complainant in the original bill shall obtain the relief which he seeks against such defendant.