Ricks v. Richardson

Mississippi Supreme Court October 15, 1892

Ricks v. Richardson, 70 Miss. 424 (Miss. 1892)

Campbell

Opinion of the Court

Campbell, C. J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

Apart from all other grounds, we are constrained to approve the action of the chancellor in dissolving the injunction as improvidently issued, because the complainant had a plain, adequate, complete, simple and appropriate remedy for the grievance complained of, by petition to the circuit *427-court for a supersedeas of the execution. Besides this, the very matter in dispute was pending in the circuit court, and, if this hill were sustained as properly brought, the spectacle might be presented of a decision of the same matter by two courts, with an appeal from each. As long as two separate courts are maintained in our system, litigants are liable to be misled, to their cost, as to which to resort to in a given case; but while this is a great evil, the courts must preserve the unfortunate distinction, except wherein provision is made against it in certain conditions. Constitution 1890, § 147.

Affirmed.

Reference

Full Case Name: S. T. Ricks v. J. S. Richardson
Cited By: 1 case
Status: Published
Syllabus: 3. Injunction. Jurisdiction. Remedy at law. Supersedeas. Where, pending a motion in the circuit court by defendant to set aside a judgment by default, the respective attorneys agree, in writing, that judgment shall stand in favor of plaintiff for a less amount., and execution issues therefor, the defendant, who repudiates the compromise, denying the authority of his counsel to make it, cannot enjoin the execution in equity, for his reined}' at law by supersedeas is plain and adequate. 2. Same. Matters pen dine/ in circuit court. No relief in equity. And, besides, where the matters in controversy between the parties are actually pending in the circuit court, the chancery court will not take-cognizance of them, since so to do might lead to different results in the two courts.