The weekly Panola star. [volume] (Panola, Miss.) 1857-1881, 1872-08-10

UI lNiF ftHH WIa ftIs.I NJ We hfff
lnr. ! deem DE lfwrunhfInf 1hase
lruh waved and lfucer,l Hs efdnP
~ Complainant hlei ln hHenleJ
blIiOri l8. is1iIsimply correcting
an ADMITTED anl lmm1itf.h ffw
hnl amending the PRAYER n fhr
original biIl
AZ 70 whom Tie 6nt decd from
Shuiorl anil site va executed. the
proof by deposltious, though c,i
denly prepoudernlinv iu favor nt
Mfs Westbfook, is uuccriiu. and
several conflicting statements occur.
statements, too. conflicting With part
% the records introduced in esi-
deucc. These discrepancies Ircgafd
~ merely indicative of the uncertain.
ty Of memory ~ matters Of this
sort long passed, and IN ~ wise
affecting the eredibility Of the wit.
uesses The subsequent decd, how
ever, seems not TO bc coutradictcd -
/ il. indeed, it could bc-and Il fecites
the loss OF former deed made to
Mary Westbrook tor the same lot
and is acknowled to b. intended
as substitute only for that which
is lost and for no other purpose
Let us now examine the record
OF the circuit court here introduced.
On the 30th of April, 1861, Andrew
Jackson and 7, B. Barringer filed
their petition against j. 7. West
brook for the entorcem Mt OF me.
chanics lien "ior lumber furnished
in aud about the construction Of
certain house situated upon lot No.
6 in the subdivision of block +, &c" ;"
in Batesvllle. The amount of the
lien sought to be enforced, as shown
by exhibit filed, was S79.49. Process
was duly executed upon the defend
ant May 4, 1861. The record shows
nothing further till the Odd OF
April, 1866, when the defendant
fled a plea Of payment. On the
10th of May, 1866, Judgment was
rendered against the defendant 81.
7. W cstbrook) for Sl04.SO to satisfy
which the lot as well as the house
was ordered to be sold, The entire
property was accordingly sold by
the sheriff at public sale on the 9Th
Of August, 1866, when--as alleged
in the amended bill--R. s. Boyles
became the purchaser at the sum of
$500. OF this sum s137.13 was
applied TO the satisfaction of the
aforesaid judgment aud costs and
the residue 10 other judgments
against the defendant. The petition
upon which the judgment was ren.
dered-and which was the founda
ton Of the snit--prayed for ga special
order for the sale of the dwelling
house aforesaid to enforce the me-
chanic's lien in such cases provided
and tor execution for the residue if
any unpaid after the appropriation
of the sum arising from the sale Of
said house to the payment of sand
debt, or for such other and further
, order as to the court may seem
proper, Sc"
The jurisdiction of a court OF
equity is broader and more compre-
I hcnsiyc than that of q court of law,
and yet question if even the for
mer could properly have rendered a
} decree against the lot upon bill
, framed precisely like this petition,
. aud concluding with the same
: prayers % Muniord, 29). 1t is true
the statute gives the mechanic or
, material-man lien upon the land
r as well as the building, If it is owned
= by the debtor---or upon his interest
/, therein, be they what they may
but it requires that the petition
$ shall "describe with reasonable GER
/, tainty the property upon which the
: lien is intended to operate" and to
$ all property thus described, desig.
I, mated and pointed out as the par.
: ticular property upon which The
I mechanics lien is prayed 70 be en-.
forced, the doctrine of i,speadens
clearly applies to no other. Hopkins
D v. Mcl.aren 4, Cowen 678--Ed-
= moDds V. Crensbaw /, McCord',
t charcery reports 252, in which lattel
: case it was explicitly held that Hs.
:. pendens 10 notice only in relation tc
+ the proI erty which Is the immeda' {
;. subject of the suit. Taking III,
s record and the facts as shown, / have
:, no idea that the original plaintiff,
or their attorneys ever intended ol
k proposed that the lien should operate
t upon the lot, or that any man o
y ordinary judgement would hav,
G presumed 30, from the petition itsel
IS aud the exhibit filed with it. TIL,
n amount OF the exhibit is less thar
b $50, which amount any one woult
It imagine the building itself ampl,
Q sufficient to secure, though, eveI
IS had the amount been quadrnpl,
% what it is, | am inclined to thinl
II that, without an amendment to th'
II petition, the Judgment could no
d properly have embraced the land
g BE this as it may however, th'
It amount is not such as TO indicat
0 eithera purpose or a necessity Il
., enforce lien on the lot. True, com
}. plainant charges that the lot wa
n paid for by J. T. Wcstbrook Will
II bis own means, but this allegation j
8 denied, and is not sustained by tb,
/ proof, and counsel in argumen
d urge that the proof shows it wa
It paid for with the means Of the par
e ties for whom he was agent Ii thi
10 evidence--not agreeing with the al
If lcgata--be admitted at all, why may