Dreyfus v. Gage

Mississippi Supreme Court
Dreyfus v. Gage, 79 Miss. 403 (Miss. 1901)
Whitfield

Dreyfus v. Gage

Opinion of the Court

Whitfield, C. J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This appeal purports to be an appeal to settle the principles of the cause. But the decree plainly recites that the cause was ■ retained for the sole purpose of ascertaining damages due on the dissolution of the injunction. In effect, therefore, the cause was disposed of, and manifestly an appeal to settle the principles of a cause already settled is useless. We decline, therefore, to treat this as an appeal to settle the principles of the cause. But a decree was rendered dissolving the injunction, and an appeal has been prosecuted from that decree.

We do not think the appellant is shown to be barred by laches, under all the circumstances of the case. While the cotton was in the state, there was ample remedy at law. But when this bill was filed it had been sold and shipped out of the state to nonresident purchasers — Gage & Co. The proceeds *407were in the hands of the sureties on the replevin bond, to await the result of the replevin suit. If the landlord’s lien had not been waived, then these sureties were constructive trustees in iwoitum, of the proceeds of said cotton, and the nonresident defendants, Gage & Co., were out of the jurisdiction of our courts. The controversy is one as to the priority of liens between the mortgagees and the landlord. We think the court had jurisdiction, for these reasons, and, having jurisdiction, it was entirely proper to enjoin the replevin suit and draw to the chancery forum the whole matter for adjudication in one decree. The decree dissolving the injunction is reversed and the injunction reinstated, and so much of the decree as retains the •cause solely for the ascertainment of damages is also reversed, and the court below will proceed with the cause on its merits, and at the final hearing dissolve or perpetuate the injunction, as equity may require. We do not think, in the attitude of this case, we should do more now than this, since it is not an appeal to settle the principles of the cause. The questions of waiver, estoppel, etc., the court below will determine on the merits.

Decree aeeordÁngly.

Reference

Full Case Name
Leonidas F. Dreyfus v. William A. Gage
Cited By
2 cases
Status
Published
Syllabus
1. Appeal. Code i 892, \\ 34. To settle principles of case. The supreme court will decline to treat an appeal as intended to settle the principles of the case, under code 1892, $ 34, authorizing such appeals from interlocutory decrees, where the principles have been settled by the court below and the cause is retained only to ascertain the damages to be awarded for the wrongful suing out of an injunction. 2. Equity. Jurisdiction. Priority of liens. Injunctions. Suit at law. Code 1892, §§ 2495-2539. The chancery court has jurisdiction of a suit by the assignee of a landlord’s claim for rent, to determine the priority of liens on agricultural products as between the complainant, claiming a . statutory lien for the rent (code 1892, §$2495, 2539), and the beneficiaries in a deed of trust given by the tenant on such products, and may enjoin a replevin suit for the property brought by the trustee in the deed against the tenant, and adjudicate the whole controversy. ' 3. Replevin. Sureties on bond. Trustees in invitvm. The sureties on a replevin bond who have received and retain the proceeds of a sale of the property involved, to await the result of the replevin suit, are constructive trustees in inmt/wm, of the funds, and may be held liable therefor, where the property has been carried out of this state, in a chancery proceeding by a complainant who asserts and maintains an equitable right to the property superior to the claims of the parties to the replevin suit.