The weekly Panola star. [volume] (Panola, Miss.) 1857-1881, 1872-08-10
OPINION.
Chancery COurt--PanOla County
July Term, 1872.

II. II. CAMP VS.. ]. T. wEsTRRook ET AL.
The bill is filed against Catherine
and George Shuford and others,
none Of whom have answered ex.
cept Joseph T. Westbrook and Mary
f., his wife, who are the real par
ties in interest as defendants.
Complainant alleges that defend
ant, in the year 1861, paid for lot
No. 6, on block +, in the town Of
Batesville, Panola county, in accord
ance with the terms OF contract
previously entered into with George
Shuford and wife, or their agent,
Thomas, F. Caldwell. that said
Westbrook paid for said lot with his
own means, and received a deed
therefor in his own name: that he
subsequently became indebted to
Andrew Jackson & Co., for lumber
which was used in the erection of
dwelling house upon said lot: that
the house and lot were subsequently,
(to>w!t, on the 9th of August, 1860,
sold BY the sheriff under an order
Of the circuit court, to satstya judg-
ment r ndercd upon the petition Of
said A. jackson 4 Co., for the eu.
forcement OF a mechanics lien, at
which sale K. S. Boyles became the
purchaser of said house and lot,
which he subsequently sold to w.
s. Harris, and Harris to complain
ant, and that complainant thereupon
vent into possession of the premises,
and has remained in possession ever
since. That Mrs. Mary f. West.
brook, after the sale by the sheriff
brought an action of "forcible en-
try and detainer" to dispossess
Boyles and those holding under him,
claiming that the lot was her sepa.
rate property. That r. s. Boyle;
thereupon filed his bill in Chancery
upon which he obtained an injunc.
ton restraining the proceedings al
law: that this bill was subsequently
dismissed by one Peete, an attorney
and counsellor at law, claiming t.
act as counsel for said Boyles, but
as complainant alleges--without
authority. That since the dismis'
sion Of said bill, the said Mary +
Westbrook has renewed and is pros
ecuting her said suit at law, etc, etc
An injunction is prayed, which wal
granted upon the bill by his honor
Judge Fisher.
Defendant Mary F. Westbrool
answers, admitting the purchase O
the lot from Shuford and wife b,
her husband, and the erection OF th'
dwelling house thereon. She denie
all knowledge of any judgment o
sale, and requires that proof Of eacl
and every allegation Of the bill no
admitted by her to be true. Sh,
denies that the deed to said lot wa
made to her husband, but allegeI
that the 10! was paid for with he
money, and the deed made to he
directly in her own name by sai'
Shuford and wife, and that the sam,
was lost; that in lieu Of the los
deed, second one was executed t,
her by Shuford and wife in 1866
which is of record: that the prop
erty has been in her possession eithe
in person or by agent or tenant, til
the sale alleged in complainant
bill, after which, without her knowl
edge or consent, her tenant attornc'
to Boyles. She also alleges tha
she gave notice long prior to tn
sale that she was the owner of tb
lot, and that her second deed was 0
record prior to the rendition Of th
judgment in favor of Jackson & Ca
The answer Of j. T. Westbrool
coroborates the main allegations il
the answer of his wife and co defend
ant.
, The9e anewera ara naifhar e,ona,