Case Name: Joseph J. White et al v. Frank P. Jenkins
Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Mississippi
Decision Date: 1901-03
Citations: 79 Miss. 57
Docket Number: 
Parties: Joseph J. White et al v. Frank P. Jenkins.
Judges: 
Reporter: Mississippi Reports
Volume: 79
Pages: 57–58

Head Matter:
Joseph J. White et al v. Frank P. Jenkins.
Deeds of Tbust. Substituted trustee. Appointment. Record. Laws 1896, p. 105.
Under the aet of 1896 (Laws 1896, p. 105), providing that sales under deeds of trust by substituted trustees shall not convey the title of the grantor until the substitution appear of record, the writing appointing the substituted trustee must be of record before a valid sale under the deed of trust can be made by him.
From the chancery court of Lowndes county.
Hon. Adam M. Byrd, Chancellor.
Jenkins, the appellee, was complainant in the court below; White and others, appellants, were defendants there. The complainant claimed to own an undivided one-half interest in the lands in controversy by virtue of a purchase at a sale made in 1898, by a substituted trustee, under two deeds of trust, executed in March, 1886, and March, 1892, respectively. The record fails to show that the substitution of the trustee, in either deed, was made of record. The bill sought partition of the lands and an accounting for rents. The defendants denied the complainant’s title and the power of the substituted trustee to make the sale, because of the failure to comply with the act of 1896, mentioned in the opinion of the court. The court below decreed for complainant, and defendants appealed to the supreme court.
Gayoe <& Sturdivant, for appellants.*
Sykes c& O'Neill, for appellee.*
This case was decided at the March term. 1900, and would have been reported in78 Miss, but for the loss of the record. The briefs of counsel are yet mislaid.

Opinion:
Whitfield, C. J.,
delivered the opinion of the court.
The appellee's whole claim depends upon the validity of the sales under the two trust deeds, and it is clear that the substi tution of O'Neill as trustee in both trust deeds occurred after the adoption of the act of 1896 (Laws 1896, p. 105), in the year 1898, was governed by that law, and, not complying with it, was invalid. The sales were void, because the substitution of the trustee in both instances was not recorded as required by said act. It may be added that there is no substitution, even in writing, of O'Neill for McQuinton in the trust deed executed in 1892, so far as this record discloses. It follows that the decree of sale, and the decree as to the rents, the latter hinging upon the former, of course, are, for the single reason stated, erroneous.
Reversed, and remanded ftir decree in accordance with this opinion. So ordered.