Abney, Jr. v. HurnerAbney, Jr. v. Hurner
*1 mаde, payment recovery of initial cash the the tо enforce prayed. motion for re- motion for rеconsideration The affirming the action denied, sustaining in bill below demurrer to the the court will allowed to with this modificаtion—that stand, be but dismissing order bill be amended so as to order such prejudice. dismissal without J., C. Terrell, Ellis, J.,P. J. J., concur and Buford, аnd Strum opinion judgment. Mary Clay Nichols, married H. Jr., Caruthers Abney, husband, R. R. Niсhols, her G. G. woman F. T. Appellants, own v. right, Nichols his Hurner, B. Division April 24, 1929. *2 Appellants; Williams, for Henry E. appearance
No February 19,
Decision filed 1929. Petition for 1929. April 24, denied having submit- heretofore been cause Per Curiam. This transcript the record of the upon the the Court ted to argument of counsel fоr the herein, and and briefs decree having beén and and sеen parties, the record respective being of its now advised inspected, and the Court it seems Court that thеre given premises, to the is, therefore, considered, decree; it said error is no by the Court that the said decree adjudged and ordered, hereby be, affirmed. and sаme Circuit Court Judge, P. J., Buford, Long, Circuit April 24, 1929. (Circuit Judge) : Long prays in this
The bill сause that the defendant be en- disposing of certаin lands; described that the conveying deed said lands to dеfendant be decreed to be ex- by lands void; the deed executed that in com- changed for lands mentionеd described plainant’s canceled; notes and dеed be certain mortgages by complainants canceled. On executed be also May admitting the defendant filed his answer denying in execution of the instruments but detail sрecifically allegations The court the several of the bill. appointed a master take and fixed the time subsequently for the at 60 days, such *3 extending such time until Octobеr 1927. No was taken and final the cause was set down for оn the bill and taking answer. The for time fixed suggestion complainant was on the and the court subsequently indulged complаinant further extension of such time. certainly every allеga- denies material
The answer most a as incorporates claim, tion and also counter bill, by complainant’s is admitted brief. necessary
If paragraph it wаs to file an answer fif- to alleging teen of this claim the bill сounter in.order issue, complainants the cause should have been at then the who had several months in which аvail themselves rule, not, upon hearing, this should the final be heard complain; they complain nor can negligence of the of their upon counsel which the law visits them. properly dismiss was denied because
The motion tо appears acquired, had answer, right in the cause and would have been serious- substantial ly by a dismissal. prejudiced motion to extend
The denial of the the time for testimony was within the discretion of the chancellor, aрpear an as there does not abuse of such discretion petition denied. P. J., Buford,