Hill v. Godwin
75 So. 122 | Miss. | 1917
delivered the opinion of the court.
This cause is ruled by Martin v. Martin, 69 Miss. 315, 13 So. 267, from which it follows that the court below should not have required security of appellant Sam Hill; and, since that fact must determine the present controversy, the decree of the court below is reversed, and the hill dismissed.
Reversed and dismissed.
