Sanders v. Ditch (La.).' 777 Southern R. Co. v. Birmingham, S. & N. 509 Sanders v. State (Ala.). 564 Sarah Planting & Refining Co., Hibernia ..1031 Savage v. Smith (Ala.). Savannah, F. & W. R. Co. v. Willett (Fla.) 246 (Miss.) Southern R. Co. v. Jackson (Ala.). Southern R. Co. v. Jones (Ala.). Southern R. Co. v. Plott (Ala.). 374 Southern R. Co. v. Posten (Ala.). Southern R. Co. v. Roebuck (Ala.). 346 Southern R. Co. v. Walker (Ala.). 604 Southern R. Co., Hood v. (Ala.)... 703 Southern R. Co., Mizzell v. (Ala.). 514 Southern R. Co. in Mississippi v. 453 988 501 33 21 611 487 937 86 Seamans, Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. (Miss.) Selma Street & Suburban R. Co. v. Owen (Ala.) Spotswood v. Bentley (Ala.). 445 598 Spradley v. State (Miss.). 534 Selser, Browne v. (La.). 290 Spratlin v. Colson (Miss.). 814 Senegal, State v. (La.). 867 Springfield Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. 810 Shadgett v. Phillips & Crew Co. (Ala.). 20 Staehle v. Leopold (La.). 882 Shannon, Georgia State Building & Loan Standard Guano & Chemical Mfg. Co. v. Ass'n v. (Miss.).. 900 Grissom (Miss.) .1039 Standard Oil Co., Louisiana State Board Sharp, Brown v. (Miss.). 712 Simmons, Durham & Co., Baxley v. (Ala.) 76 State v. Cain (La.). State v. Southern Building & Loan Ass'n State v. Tolman (La.).. State v. Watkins (La.). State v. Weston (La.). State, Breeland v. (Miss.). Page State, Taylor v. (Ala.).. 79 State ex rel. Brittin v. City of New Orleans 551 (La.) 107 State ex rel. Fitzpatrick-Cromwell Co. v. Ellis (La.). 104 Page 371 282 421 1039 725 743 557 854 572 197 787 717 984 373 55 313 State, Schang v. (Fla.). State, Norille v. (Ala.). State, Scott v. (Fla.). [Cases in which rehearings have been denied, without the rendition of a written opinion, since the publication of the original opinions in previous volumes of this reporter.] Henry v. Henderson (Miss.) 30 So. 754. Morrison v. American Snuff Co. (Miss.) 30 So. Pitts v. Montgomery (Miss.) 30 So. 649. See End of Index for Tables of Southern Cases in State Reports and Additional Tables. THE SOUTHERN REPORTER. VOLUME 31. VICKSBURG WATER WORKS CO. V. MAYOR, ETC., OF CITY OF VICKSBURG. (Supreme Court of Mississippi. Jan. 6, 1902.) APPEAL-INTERLOCUTORY ORDER. Code, 34, authorizing the chancellor to grant an appeal from any interlocutory order, whereby money is required to be paid or the possession of property changed, or where the chancellor thinks it proper to state the principles in the case or to avoid delay or expense, does not authorize an appeal from an interlocutory order refusing to remove a cause to the federal courts. Appeal from chancery court, Warren county; W. C. Martin, Chancellor. Suit by the mayor and aldermen of the city of Vicksburg against the Vicksburg Water Works Company for the cancellation of a contract. From an order denying defendant's petition for the removal of the cause to the federal courts, the defendant appeals. Appeal dismissed. Appellees, the mayor and aldermen of the city of Vicksburg, who were complainants in the court below, filled their bill in chancery against the Vicksburg Water Works Company, the defendant there, seeking to cancel and annul a certain contract which had before then been entered into between them and Samuel R. Bullock & Co., which contract had been first assigned to the Vicksburg Water Supply Company, and afterwards to the Vicksburg Water Works Company, the appellant here. Complainants in their bill deny any liability under said contract with Samuel R. Bullock & Co. upon the ground that the contract had not been complied with by the said Bullock & Co. or the said defendants, and also that the said mayor and aldermen were not authorized to make and enter into a contract in the manner in which it had been adopted. The Vicksburg Water Works Company filed its petition for the removal of the case to the federal court, setting up the impairment of the contract made by the mayor and aldermen of the city of Vicksburg with Samuel R. Bullock & Co., in violation of article 1, 10, of the constitution of the United 31 So.-1 States. The petition for removal was denied by the court below, and from this order of the court this appeal is prosecuted. S. S. Hudson, for appellant. Magruder, Bryson & Dabney and W. J. Vollor, for appellees. PER CURIAM. The order of the chancery court refusing to remove the cause to the federal court is not such an interlocutory order as may be appealed from under section 34, Code. The appeal is therefore dismissed, and appellant is allowed 15 days from the date of filing the mandate in the court below in which to plead, answer, or demur to the bill. CULP v. WOOTEN et al. (Supreme Court of Mississippi. Jan. 6, 1902.) MORTGAGE ABSOLUTE DEED AS MORTGAGEPOSSESSION-FRAUD-FORCIBLE ENTRY AND DETAINER-INSTRUCTIONS. 1. Code 1892, § 4233, providing that a conveyance absolute on its face, where the makers part with the possession, shall not be proved by parol evidence to be a mortgage, unless fraud in its procurement be the issue to be tried, does not prohibit the admission of parol evidence to show that the deed is a mortgage, if the grantee continues in possession, though there is no issue of fraud, or when he has surrendered possession, if there is an issue of fraud. 2. Where a husband and wife, in leaving their homestead for one or two years to cultivate rented land, leave their children in occupation, and intend to return, it is not a parting with the possession, within Code 1892, 4233, providing that a conveyance cannot be shown by parol evidence to be a mortgage when the grantor parts with the possession unless fraud in the procurement of the conveyance is in issue. 3. Defendant in unlawful entry and detainer to recover possession of land conveyed by him to plaintiff was an illiterate negro, and indebted to plaintiff. Defendant testified that personal property transferred to plaintiff at the time was sufficient to pay the debt, which was not denied by plaintiff. Defendant received no consideration for the deed and personal property, except the extinguishment of his debt. Disinterested witnesses testified that defendant was led to believe by plaintiff that the deed was a mortgage, and that he should have five years in which to redeem the land. Held |
