The comet. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1877-1882, 1879-02-22
G. G. LOVE, OF al,
W. E. STONE, ct al.

Stone purchased the land in controvers,
at commissioners sale, and gave bond TO
the purchase money with Wooten as surety
Before the payment of purchase money
became due, by parol sale, Stone sold the
land to Wooten his surety for the same
price at which he had bought. No memo
randum of any sort was made of THU
transaction.
Wooten accordingly took possession Of
the land. Soon afterwards sold to his
brother, who occupied for while but sur
rendered to his vendor on learning of his
defective title.
Wooten then sold to Foster, who sold to
Dunn.
After this, Wooten, Stones vendee by
parol sale, bought the land from Dunn.
Wooten sold an undivided half interes
to Love, the father of appellants now de-
ceased who took possession and occupied
jointly with Wooten. Wooten sold his in
terest to Vaughn, who went into possession
and shortly afterwards partition was had
between him and Love, who claimed the
other half and thereby the one hundred
acres now in controversy, were set apart to
Love-
After this, Vaughn gave deed in trust
to Stone on the portion set off to him to
secure debt, and this deed was finally ex>
ecuted, Stone becoming the purchaser.
Thereupon, Stone instituted an action of
eiectment against Love to recover the one
hundred acres in his possession, which res
suited in verdict for him. Love died and
one of his heirs in possession adjourned to
Stone, as his landlord, and gave his note
for the rent of the land.
Afterwards he refused to pay the note,
and, in conjunction with his sister, filed
this bill to enjoin the Judgment of
Stone. The payment to the commission
er was made by Stone, through the hands
of Wooten, who delivered the deed to
Stone who returned it to Wooten to have
it recorded. Wooten died and his admin |
found the deed among his papers,
and returned it to Stone, who had the deed |
recorded The bill claims that Wooten |
paid for the land himself that he and those |
holding through him and his vendees,
treated the land as their own, and made |
NdIuhDlO improvements, Win THO hLOWlouH0
of Stone, who never informed any of them
of his title or claim to the land. That Love
was permitted to buy and improve half |
that Stone did many things indi-
eating that he did not intend to claim the
and as his own. Among which particu-
arly are his assisting in the sale to
Vaughn, and taking deed in trust from
him, in which allusion is made to the par>
ion between Love and Vaughn. And
hat Stone is therefore estopped.
A motion was made to suppress the dep
,sition of Stone. because he testified to es-
ablish his claim against Wooten deceased
,erson.
)AMPBELL, j.
7eLd-
1. Motion to suppress the deposition of
tone was properly overruled. 1t is true
hat Wootsn, administrator, is a co-defen-
ant of Stone, but there is no controversy
etween them, and no right of Wooten is
involved in this suit, as between the COM
lainants and Stone. That WooteD's estate
lay be affected prejIdicially in consequence
{ the result of this suit in Stones favor,
nd future action against Wooten's estate
oes not render Stone incompetent as wit
ess in the present suit To exclude par !
: as a witness to prove his own claim or
ght, it must be against the estate of de- {
8ased person in the suit in which he pro- t
oses to testify. a
3. There was no objection in the Court s
Glow TO the testimony of Stone as a wit il
sss because his claim was against the es-
te of Lowe, deceased; and we will not S
,nsideE the the question here. .
4 The testimony Of Stone, destroyed
.e equity Of the bill, which rests upon the a
serment Of the payment by Wooten, the p
lrety Of Stone to the commissioner OF the y
lrchase money Of the land. Stone testi- q
ID that he paid the money, and that e
ToOten did not. il
4. Stone was not estopped BY his acts. in tC