The weekly Panola star. [volume] (Panola, Miss.) 1857-1881, 1866-08-11
HM if I#l
peflsleHs " " HHh fsHH u
Ntfgufs 80 iHpfala

flHlailH II ffff HHH : wasffl alle
w II laHt ~ assgefl Fih
? hHt n l#fllra AW afifn8ymhYln#
H. atfifHle ~ nfialH saHls ~
money f#tl BY lhe plalhna. A. ihe
W HlfHfs ~ aHi b. Wfi8la slms
HNi aHd Hs#lga fAW dalfHaanf
pleeled, II, ihf gfnwal I@ae and
Nv payment ~ ~ m8a ~ mnutf
iemsndesl ifhlfe ile Institution N.
llr suit and Wuh Ne lHilef Plea :
n fafilouius Waa alei Nv w
N AiilnR "a saniaihlnv imang
things 4 charge w ate and
gsuwiiaa n Ne llfahdan lluel
ifum w September 1851 ~ Narh
~, 1896, " fsOn ~ ymf. smanet
Inv ~ Al ifBl B1 fhe plalmlns
ripple r. this setnnd plea, that nj
Che lime said set.on nrfuci, ne
plain'lf Mify vawaai VA. y mar
RED WI aud Wife NJ ksleanl
Ninkma Ia M. the defendant n.
lnined IN mlstauee, that Iwfpfe ihe
aecnual ~ The plaintiff = cnnsc II nc.
tom The defendant, being the owner
Of The Brtndun Hotel and premises,
made q verbal cuntfaa ~ .cll the
same 10 Mrs Vanmni upon terms
which ARE stated, and, under that
contract, that plaintiff. went Into
possession Of the promises, and, IN
right Of ibc wife, kept q hotel there.
on, and during said occupancy paid
NJ different times sums amounting 10
300, In part payment Of the pnr-
chase money, but failed aud refused
TO comply with the terms Of said
agreement Of purchase, and held pos
session Of the premises, In right Of
the wife, against the viii of defend.
ant, but under the verbal contract
which use and occupation he avcrs
was worth 1888 30. lie AYERS that
he was always ready and willing ia
execute the verbal agreement on hi,
part, but that plaintiffs fraudulently
refused to execute the same.
The plaintiff dcmurrcd to this re.
joindcr, upon the following grounds
LIST, That II was no avoidance of th,
replication. I'd, That Il is n depart
ure from the plea and sets up a new
defence. Sd, 1t does not show tina
Mary Vanzant was liable, not
withstanding her co%verture. 4th, |
sets up matter, evidence under tn
general issue.
The demurrer was overruled, an,
leave given to the plaintiffs to answe
over; which they failed to.
A second rejoinder was fled, whic'
alleges that after the making of sal
verbal contract, Mrs. Vanzant pur
chased goods for the use and purpos
Of carrying on said hotel, from Shel
ton d Co., set forth in certain exhit
its, filed, of which firm dcfendar
was a partner, who gave her cred
with the firm by assuming to pay f
goods furnished and money advance
to her, which he was induced to 4
by her assurance that she woul
carry out said verbal contract for III
purchase of said hotel-that Will
said account was being made, Mr.,
Vanzant paid to Shelton & Co., $40
on 29th December, 1864, being III
item in the plaintiffs bill of particr
lars charged as of that date, an
whichis therein improperly stated 0
a deposit with the defendant ; an
on 9th July, 1855, she paid to tn
credit of said account $3.50, stated i
a receipt of Shelton & Co., Of tha
date filed with the declaration I; whic
several sums were payments To Shel
ton d Co, on their account for good
furnished, &c, for the hotel.
To this the plaintiffs demurred o
the following grounds: |. That
was but a new ground Of defence
the declaration, and not an avoidan'
of the replication 2. II showed n
legal liability Of Mrs. Vanzant, no
withstanding her coverture.
This demurrer was o%verruled, an
leave given to the plaintiffs to rep
over, which they failed to do, az
Judgment was rendered for the d
PENDANT.
;, On the pleadings, the case stan,
tsns: The plaintiff sues on accoul
Of money paid by them for the d
PENDANT. and for money. had and T
J ceived by him to their use. The d
! PENDANT pleads payment, and reli
, rs u set-of for money due by d
, wife for rent Of the hotel. She I
plies, denying her liability by reas'
Of her overture. The defenda
J then rejoins, alleging that the su
: claimed in the plaintiffs declarati'
to have been paid by them, was n
4 paid to him tor the plaintiffs N
but was paid on the parol contri
for the purchase of the hotel Al
premises, and, that contract bel
: invalid, that the money was appli
by him 10 pay biz claim for Use a
occupation of the premises.
This Is a clear departure from |
ground taken in she plea of PAYNE
: In that plea, interpreted by the
/ Of the accompanying bill Of parti'
lars, he alleges that he had paid
sum demanded, because he plainly
rife ras liable 10 him for the
Te and occupation Of the hotel. But
2 the first rejoinder, he alleges that
r. money claimed by her as havi
!. been paid for her use, was paid BY
: aud applied by him to the PAYNE
Z of his claim Cor use and oocupati
D In the one case, he says she Is
re deb,ed to him, in the other, he $
"A she has paid hat Indebtedness.
!. the former case, she would not