Rush v. Pearson
Mississippi Supreme Court
Rush v. Pearson, 92 Miss. 153 (Miss. 1907)
45 So. 723
Mayes
Rush v. Pearson
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the court.
It was necessary for Rush to tender into court the amount admitted to be due, or pay same, before he could maintain his injunction. Purvis v. Woodward, 78 Miss., 922, 29 South., 917; Crittenden v. Ragan, 89 Miss., 185, 42 South., 281; Lewis v. Boguechitto, 76 Miss., 356, 24 South., 875; M. & O. Ry. Co. v. Moseley, 52 Miss., 127. We think the decree of the chancery court was correct. The decree is affirmed and the cause remanded, with leave to complainant to pay the amount admitted to be due in ten days after mandate filed; otherwise, the injunction stands dissolved.
Affirmed and remanded.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Philip A. Rush v. Leland L. Pearson
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- ■Chancery Practice. Injunction. Sale under trust deed. Amount admitted to Toe due. Tender. Payment. In a proceeding to enjoin a sale under a trust deed on the ground of usury, it is not error, on motion, to decree that the injunction he dissolved, unless complainant shall make payment of the amount admitted to be due, the injunction in such case to be continued until final hearing.