The Daily clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1866-1888, 1876-02-24
LEGAL sNTE-IlGGNSG'
NN-NNN.N.NNN~N~
SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI
Cases Decided Tuesday, Feb. l6.
PREPARED FOR THE CLARION BY FRANK
JOHNSTON, ESQ.
Morgan 81. Thompson ed al. w.
William VI. Strickland et al.
Oo;ni;ou of the Court By SIMRALL, j.

ODi,aiors of the Court By SIMRALL, j.
This suit was begun originally by Thomas
n Hudson and wife, and Morgan H.
Thompson. The latter has ceased TO nave
any interest in it, and 1t Is now prosecuted
bv Hudson and wife. The facts are these ::
James NJ. Thompson dIed III 1910, IeaVlnS
A large estate, in real and personal properly :,
Mrs Hudson Morgan III. Thompson ana
Mrs Strickland (wife of VIM. Nj, Strlck-
land) were his deViseeS. Strickland was
APPOINTED guardian for Mrs. Hudson, then
unmarried and a minor, and Morgan H.
Thomson, also minor. The tesla
tor provided in his will, that the property
should be kept together until the youngest
child was OF age.
During the minority of his wards Strlck-
land, without adequate consideration, III
duced them to sell and convey certain prop
ertv situated in Holly Springs to him. In
1857, they were indHced to join Strickland
and wife in deed, conveying parcel OF
land to one Wall; and in 1858, still being
under age and wards of Strickland, at the
suggestion of the latter they executed an
agreement for partition of large tract
of the lands descended from their father,
which was consummated, and deeds IN sew
crafty made 1t this partition Mrs. SIrick-
land received the most valuable share.
Mrs Hudson attained her maj Ority inFeb-
ruary. 1861. And in 1866 she filed bill IN
guilty to vacate these conveyances There
was decree In the Cnancery court IN IaVOf
of the defendants.
On appeal to the Sup enc Court the only
question discussed and considered by. the
Court was, whether Mrs. Hudson had lost
her right to disatfirm these acts because OF
her delay in asserting her rights in Court.
Held.
|. These transactions between the guar
dian and his wards in view OF his influence
over them and their confidence in him,
should not be permitted to stand unless en-
trely fair, and uneQuivocally ratified by
them after attaining their majority.
II. There may be waiver of a right or the
confirmation of a voidable act by acquies-
cence and an election to abide by the act may
be Inferred from an unreasonable delay.
! Reasonable diligence in taking steps to
avoid the act is required.
! III. 1t is impossible to lay down gener-
| al rule to what constitutes unreasonable
! delay. each case must be determined by it's
| own peculiar circumstances.
| ". In the case at bar, the delay in com
mencing suit to vacate the conveyances in
view of the attending events and circum-
>tances, cannot be regarded as unreasona-
hle. Nor can a confirmation OF voldable acts
be inferred from her failure during the re
rind fram 1861 to 1866, to assert her rights
! in court OF Justice In January. 1861,
| The ordinance OF secession was passed du-
ring fhe same year laws staying the coIlec
ton Of debts were enacted, and during part
of this period Holly Springs was occupied
| by the Federal forces. The war technically
closed April ,, 1866. During all this period
| little attention was paid to private interests.
| In view of all these circumstances, Mrs.
! Hudson has not lost her right to disaffirm
these acts by her delay in bringing suit.
V. 1t follows that the complainant is en-
titled to have these conveyances vacated,
and to be restored to her original rights as
joint owner; Strickland TO account for
rents Tor the town property, and for the
other tract of land so far as it has been pro-
! ductivc to him
| (NOTE.-Because of the uncertainty of
the title to the tract conveyed to Wall. the
deed to him will not be disturbed Re
| UerSed and Tenadnded.