Court Opinion

ID: 9527945
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:35:44.798497+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:26:18.320844
License: Public Domain

Lee, J.,
dissenting.
On the original decision of this case, I thought that the decree of the trial court should have been affirmed. My views were stated in a dissent at the time.
*248I did not think Peeples v. Boykin, 132 Miss. 359, 96 So. 177, should have been overruled because in my opinion (1) it was correctly decided and announced a wholesome principle of law; and (2) from long recognition, it had become a rule of property, many titles rested on it, and these should not be disrupted with the probability of great injustice.
I did not see how it would be judicially possible to reverse this case, if Peeples v. Boykin, supra, remained a part of our jurisprudence. However, inasmuch as the other Members of the Court determined to overrule it, I realized the futility of a lengthy exposition of my contrary views; and I strove to save the case on other grounds.
I think the blow of overruling Peeples v. Boykin should be softened at least to the extent of making it prospective; and I therefore join in the dissent by Justice Gillespie against overruling the Suggestion of Error in this case.