Thomas v. Shell Bros.

Mississippi Supreme Court
Thomas v. Shell Bros., 76 Miss. 556 (Miss. 1898)
Whitfield

Thomas v. Shell Bros.

Opinion of the Court

Whitfield, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court,

Trice v. Walker, 71 Miss., 968, is conclusive of the correctness of the action of the learned circuit judge. That decision points out the fact that §4425, code 1892, adds to § 1774, code 1880, the clause “or to have a lien on,” and expressly declares that the former section “certainly gives the right to a mere lienor to interpose a claim, regardless of possession or the right of possession.” The appellants were advised that the claimants were assérting the landlord’s lien,' and, if it would have been more correct to have sustained the application for an itemized bill of particulars, it is obvious from the whole record that they have suffered no damage by the action of the court in overruling it; so that, if error, it ivas not reversible error.

Affirmed.

Reference

Full Case Name
Thomas & Davis v. Shell Bros.
Cited By
1 case
Status
Published
Syllabus
1. Claimant’s Issue. Claim by lienor. Landlord’s assignee. Code 1892', 2 4425; code 1880, 2 1774. The assignee of a landlord's claim for rent is entitled to tne remedy by claimant’s issue, 2 4425, code 1892, extending the same to those having a lien upon property seized under execution. Trice v. Wallter. 71 Miss., 968, cited. 2. Same. Bill of particulars. Code 1892,2 705. If it appear on the whole record that plaintiff in execution was not injured thereby, the refusal to require a bill of particulars of a claimant of the property seized is not reversible error.