Weir v. Jones

Mississippi Supreme Court March 15, 1904

Weir v. Jones, 84 Miss. 610 (Miss. 1904)

Opinion of the Court

OPINION OE THE COURT ON THE MOTION.

Per Curiam.

On page 10 of this record the deed from the substituted trustee to the appellant is expressly referred to, and a copy thereof, in the language of the original bill of complaint, “is hereto attached as Exhibit ‘D’ to this, bill, and the same may also be found of record in deed book No. 14, on p. 325 et seqF That deed is copied into and forms part of this record, and by its express language makes the instrument appointing the substituted trustee a part of the deed of conveyance. This deed and appointment is not again copied as an exhibit to the amended bill, but, nevertheless, it is therein referred to again, and constitutes a part of the record presented to the court for its consideration. While this is true, there is nothing in the opinion which precludes the appellees, upon filing their amended bill, from setting up any and all grounds which they may have, attacking either the validity of the appointment of the substi*612tuted trustee or the sale made by him hy virtue of such appointment. These questions are in no wise passed upon in the original opinion, which will stand as written.

Motion denied.

Reference

Full Case Name: Richard S. Weir v. Ann J. Jones
Cited By: 2 cases
Status: Published
Syllabus: 1. Supreme Court Practice. Transcript. Exhibits to bill in equity. Recitals. Where an original bill in equity made a deed from a substituted trustee in a deed of trust an exhibit thereto and a part thereof, and the deed so exhibited made the instrument appointing the substituted trustee a part of itself, and the same was copied into the transcript, it became on appeal a part of the record in the supreme court, although an amended bill was filed in the case which simply referred to the deed and did not make it an exhibit to the bill as amended. • 2. Same. Res adjudicata. Where, in a suit to set aside a trust deed, the court, on appeal, in its opinion referred to an instrument appointing a substituted trustee, but no question as to the validity of the appointment ' was passed on, there was no ground for striking such reference from the opinion, on the idea that it might preclude complainant on the next trial from attacking the validity of the appointment.