TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Hoover v. Shackleford

Thomas B. Hoover v. Charles C. Shackleford

Hoover v. Shackleford, 23 Miss. 520 (1852)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Mississippi Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
January 15, 1852
Judges
Fisher
Citations
23 Miss. 520
Headnotes
It is a settled principle of law, that the plaintiff in an action, before he can recover, must make out his case, and it was incumbent on the plaintiff, before he could recover of the defendant, to prove that the note received by defendant for collection could have been collected with the use of ordinary diligence, and that a failure to collect resulted from gross negligence of the defendant. Held, that the plaintiff’s proof did not come up to this standard.
Summary
In error from the circuit court of Madison county; Hon. R. C. Perry, judge. The facts of the case as shown by the record are, that C. C. Shackleford took for collection an assignment from the Citizens Bank of Madison county, of a note on S. M. Purkett et ah, payable to said bank, for the sum of $42,646, due twelve months after date from the 17th September, 1839, together with a like transfer of a mortgage to secure the same; which money, when collected, was to be paid over to Thomas B. Hoover and others. Hoover brought suit on the receipt given by Shackleford in the circuit court, where a judgment was rendered in favor of defendant below, when the plaintiff (Hoover) prayed a writ of error to this court.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Fisher

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Mr. Justice Fisher

delivered the opinion of the court.

There is no question of law in this case requiring our decision. Some of the instructions asked by the plaintiff, as mere abstract questions of law, were correct; but under the testimony the court committed no error in refusing them.

*521 The verdict is fully sustained by the evidence. Indeed, we are of opinion that the plaintiff failed in proving his case. Under the agreement of defendant, the plaintiff should have proved that the makers of the note, which defendant undertook to collect, were able to pay it, or some part thereof; and that a failure to collect resulted from the gross negligence of the defendant. The plaintiff’s proof does not come up to this standard, and therefore did not sustain his case.

Judgment affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1972: 11975: 119722026peak 1972 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Nause v. Goldman321 So. 2d 304 (Miss. 1975)
  2. Nielson v. Miller259 So. 2d 702 (Miss. 1972)

Most recent

  1. Nause v. Goldman321 So. 2d 304 (Miss. 1975)
  2. Nielson v. Miller259 So. 2d 702 (Miss. 1972)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list