[ Member Login ]

Excerpts from United States Court Cases regarding various spellings of Mx

Supreme Court of Indiana November Term, 1843
The State v. Mullinix, in Error

"An indictment for retailing spirituous liquors without license, need not state the kind of liquor sold. The State v. Groeter, Nov. term, 1841, and note. (18 Ind., 388) 6 Blackf. 554, 1843 WL 2907 (Ind.)

Supreme Court of Georgia January Term, 1847
Edward A. White and others, plaintiffs in error v. Edmund Molyneux, defendant in error,

"A note given for rent of a store-house is described in the plaintiff's writ as given for rent, omitting the words of store-house. Held not to be a fatal variance under our statute. … This was an action for rent, to which the defendant pleaded the destruction of the house rented, by fire. … We consider this question as conclusively settled in England and the United States, if authority can settle any thing. It is well settled, that neither a court of law, nor of equity will relieve against an express contract to pay rent upon the ground that the premises have been destroyed by fire, or the King's enemies, or any casualty whatever, unless there is an express stipulation to that effect. Inevitable accident will excuse a party from a penalty, but will not relieve him from his covenant to perform. … If the destruction by fire would excuse the payment of rent, then might the tenant, so far as pecuniary interest is concerned, become careless to protect it. … Let the judgement of the Court below be affirmed. 2 Ga. 124, 2 Kelly 124, 1847 WL 1246 (Ga.)

Supreme Court of Georgia July Term, 1847
The Merchants' Bank of Macon, Edmund Molyneux, Edward E . Taylor and Caroline Rawls, administrator and administratrix of John Rawls, deceased, plaintiffs in error, v. Johnathan Davis, defendant in error

"Before Judge Warren, the Merchants' Bank of Macon, was prosecuting an execution issuing from Pulaski Superior Court, upon a judgment rendered, July Term, 1840, of that Court, in favor of said Molyneux, of the County of Chatham, against George W. Collier and James W. Bracewell, ad partners and principals, and Edward St. George, as security on appeal, and caused the same to be levied in the County of Baker, by the Sheriff of that county, upon certain lands and slaves, as the property of said Collier; to which property Davis, the defendant in error, interposed a claim, which was pending in the Superior Court of Baker County, wherein the land levied on and claimed, lies. … Let the judgment of the Court below be reversed." 3 Ga. 112, 3 Kelly 112, 1847 WL 1313 (Ga.)

Court of Appeals of Law of South Carolina May Term, 1851
Ruth Givens v. Martin Mullinax

"This is an action of trespass quare clausum fregit, for ploughing up about one-fourth of an acre of cotton which the plaintiff had planted. … [T]he plaintiff shewed that she was very old and poor, infirm, illiterate, and nearly helpless … . The defense was stated to be a better title in defendant, and an acknowledgement of tenancy by plaintiff. The defendant gave in evidence a grant, several deeds of conveyance, and the record of a recovery by one G. F. Ferguson against W. Quin of land included in the same grant which covered the locus in quo, and attempted thereunder to make out a title in Ferguson, under whom, he, the defendant, claimed, by conveyance dated in November, 1849. In this, however, he failed. He then gave in evidence a written acknowledgement, dated 3d May, 1848, of tenancy to continue till November of that year, given by plaintiff to G. F. Ferguson, and some testimony that, pending the suit of Ferguson against Quin, plaintiff had said she was holding under the same landlord under whom Quin held. … The jury found for the plaintiff $35. … for she had planted cotton which the defendant has ploughed up. He had, therefore, committed the act of trespass charged … plaintiff seems to have gained the verdict of the jury, without trenching upon any legal principles. She must, therefore, retain her advantage, and the motion [Mullinax's] here be dismissed. 38 S.C.L. 590, 4 rich. 590, 1851 WL 2635 (S.C.App.L.), 55 Am.Dec. 706

Supreme Court of Georgia January Term, 1855
Edward Molyneux and others, plaintiffs in error, v. George W. Collier

Collier, Bracewell and St. George, entered into a partnership, for the purpose of merchandizing at Hawkinsville, under the name of Collier & Bracewell, Edward Molyneux recovered judgment against Collier & Bracewell, with St. George as surety on the appeal, for $9,360, with interest and costs. The firm was insolvent, and the partners individually liable were in doubtful, if not insolvent circumstances. John Rawls, with a full knowledge of these facts, purchased this fi. fa. from Molyneux, and held it against the partners. He was President of the Bank of Hawkinsville, and a large stockholder therein; and as such, controlled large fi. fas. And mortgages against St. George. … With a view to defraud Collier and St. George, the said administrators procured Molyneux to transfer the said fi. fa. to the Merchant's Bank of Macon, in whose name it was proceeding at the time of the filing of the bill, having been levied on property as the property of Collier, for the payment of the remaining third due thereon. … Of course the case made by the bill, upon all the points, must be supported by proof. 17 Ga. 46, 1855 WL 1646 (Ga.)

Supreme Court of Indiana November Term, 1857
Mullinix v. The State

"Greenberry O. Mullinix was indicted for murder of Martha Mullinix, his wife. The indictment charges him with murder in the first degree. Verdict that he was guilty, and that he suffer death; upon which the Court, having refused a new trial, rendered judgment. …. [A]nd, though various errors have been assigned for the consideration of this Court, the question at once arises, is the case properly before us? The code says that 'on the trial of a criminal prosecution, exceptions may be taken by the defendant to any decision of the Court upon a matter of law, by which his substantial rights are prejudiced.' … It is needless for us to inquire what this Court would do, if the record contained the evidence, showing the accused guiltless of the crime of which he stands convicted. Such, however, is not the case at bar. … The judgment is affirmed with costs." 10 Ind. 5, 1857 WL 3675 (Ind.) [See also MxWorld: Volume 14, #3, February 2000, pp. 11-12.]

Supreme Court of Indiana November Term 1858, Filed January 19, 1859
Clark v. Mullenix

"Bill in chancery … . The bill avers that in May, 1848, the plaintiff purchased of the defendant, Nancy Clark, a certain piece of land therein described for the sum of 400 dollars, to be paid in four equal payments, on the 25th of December, of the years 1848, 1849, 1850 and 1851, … It appears from the evidence that the defendant, who resided in Kentucky, by her letters to one John Allee of Indiana, authorized him to sell the land in controversy; … The judgment is reversed with costs. Cause remanded for a new trial. 11 Ind. 532, 1858 WL 265 (Ind.)

Supreme Court of Georgia January Term, 1860
Molyneux v. Seymour, Fanning & Co.

"This was a Garnishment sued out by Seymour, Fanning & Co., calling upon E. Molyneux to depose what he was indebted to, or what effects of one Carmichael he had in his hands. … By the Court - Lumpkin, J. delivering the opinion. … First, had the Court in Carolina jurisdiction of Molyneux? And secondly, if it had, had Molyneux an attachable interest in his hands belonging to Carmichael at the time the Carolina garnishment was served? … Molyneux was served personally with the process in Charleston. He is responsible, then, to the Courts of South Carolina. … Molyneux was served personally in Charleston on the 19th of December, 1856. On the 5th of May thereafter, he filed his return, admitting $2,814.09 in his hands coming to Carmichael. On the 23d of March, 1857, he was garnisheed in Georgia, at the instance of Seymour, Fanning & Co. To this latter summons Molyneux filed an original return on the 23d of May, 1857; and an amended answer February 15th, 1859. … We hold, then … tat Molyneux had an attachable interest in his hands belonging to Carmichael at the time the Carolina garnishment was served. … consequently that the Court was wrong in ordering judgment to be entered up in this State, compelling Molyneux to pay the money in his hands a second time. 30 Ga. 440, 1860 WL 2166 (Ga.), 76 Am.Dec. 662

Supreme Court of Tennessee September Term, 1865
William Mullinix, Adm'r, et als. V. Robert Perkins et al.,
Robert & Mary Perkins v. Wm. Mullinix et als.

This is a case involving property - mortgages and quieting title. Lots of legalese - the following paragraph is the only one wherein "Mullinix" is named. "… On the 4th of September, 1856, this supplemental bill, by Mullinix, as administrator of James Pickens, Sr., and his heirs and devisees, and the heirs of Elizabeth Golding, and Benjamin Birdwell, the purchaser of the land at the master's sale, was filed against the heirs at law of James Pickens, Jr., deceased, and the other heirs o Mack Osburne, and the heirs of John Hunt, in which it was alleged the heirs of James Pickens, Jr., had no interest in the land; that it had been sold at execution sale, after the filing of the original bill; was purchased by Mrs. Bragg, and redeemed from her by James Pickens, Jr., for James Pickens, Sr., who refunded the redemption money; and praying the cloud be removed from the title, and the sale, to Benjamin Birdwell be confirmed. … "We are satisfied, from the proof, that James Pickens Jr., redeemed the land, at the instance, and for, James Pickens, Sr., and that the money was refunded, under an agreement made at the time of the redemption, and that the complainants are entitled to the relief sought. The land was sold at a fair price, at the master's sale, and it is to the interest o the complainants the sale should be confirmed. The decree of the chancellor will be confirmed and the cause remanded." 42 Tenn. 87, 1865 WL 1224 (Tenn.), 2 Cold. 87

Supreme Court of Iowa June 26, 1868
Jones v. Mullinix

Appeal from Decatur District Court
"Action for balance due on a promissory note executed by defendant to plaintiff. Defense--tender of balance due, and demand of note, and failure to deliver same. Jury trial and verdict for plaintiff. Defendant appeals." "Affirmed." 25 Iowa 198, 1868 WL 257 (Iowa)

Court of Appeals of New York Argued on January 8, 1869, Decided on March 19, 1869
The People v. Edward L. Molyneux

"This was an action in the nature of a quo warranto, charging the defendant with having usurped and unlawfully intruded himself into the office of major-general of the second division of the National Guard, and praying his ouster therefrom. … The only point in this appeal is, was the governor authorized by law to make an appointment to supply a vacancy in the office of major-general in the National Guards, of the State of New York, during a recess of the senate. … All the justices for affirmance. Judgment affirmed, with costs. 40 N.Y. 113, 1869 WL 6487 (N.Y.)

Supreme Court of Tennessee September Term, 1870
A. C. J. Crouch v. Isham D. Mullinix

"Turney, J. delivered the opinion of the Court. The judgment of the Circuit Court dismissing the writ of error coram nobis is erroneous. "On the 20th of December, 1867, plaintiff in error filed his petition in the Circuit Court of Sullivan county for writs of error coram nobis, alleging that on the 6th day of January, 1866, he instituted an action of replevin in said court, against the defendant in error, for the recovery of a bay mare; that at the March Term, 1866, he filed his declaration in due time; that no plea was ever filed thereto. The affidavit upon which his writ issued was sworn to before a Justice of the Peace. At the November Term, 1867, the cause still pending, witnesses summoned by both parties were in attendance for the purpose of a trial. On Wednesday of said term an order was made continuing all litigated civil cases to the next term; that the action of replevin was one of the causes so continued; that on Saturday, the last day of the term, after plaintiff and his counsel had left the court and gone home, a judgment by default was taken against him, a writ of inquiry was immediately awarded against him and his sureties, and a verdict and judgment for more than $400; that he had not notice of this judgment; that he had no knowledge said judgment would be rendered after the cause was continued, and prays that a writ of error coram nobis issue, &c. … "Under the rules laid down in the case cited, and by us, in this opinion, the judgment of the Circuit Court is erroneous, and must be reversed, and the cause remanded for the purpose of pleading and trial." 48 Tenn. 478, 1870 WL 2695 (Tenn.), 1 Heisk. 478

Supreme Court of Kansas July Term, 1872
George W. Roberts v. N. N. Mullenix*/**

"Action for specific performance. The evidence discloses that on the tenth of December, 1864, Mullenix executed to Henry Schull (assignor of Roberts) a title-bond, by the terms of which he bound himself to convey to 'Henry Schull, or his assigns,' 60 acres of land, on the payment of $175 cash in hand, and the further sum of $175, March 1, 1865; … The case was tried at the April term, 1871. … Some time after Roberts obtained possession of the land, Mullenix offered if Roberts would pay for the land that he would make him a deed for the land. This offer was rejected upon the alleged ground that at the time Mullenix could not make a good title. Whether the title was good or not does not appear, nor does it matter. It was not a ratification, as it was in terms just what he had agreed to do, and was rejected. It was no act. … The judgement is affirmed." 1872 WL 573 (Kan.) *This case one I must follow up on - it could be my family - wonderful if it were our Nathaniel, where Dad's research reached a dead end. So many questions about Nathaniel and his wife, Sarah Ann Pettigrew. But they were in Johnson County in the 1860 Census, then in Allen County in the 1870 Census. ** N.N. Mullenix is indeed Nathaniel Mullenix, great grandfather of US101 Marie Mullenneix Spearman; see MxWorld, Vol. 17, Issue 3, pp. 4-7.

Supreme Court of Tennessee September Term, 1872
Brandon v. Mullenix

"This is an action for slander, brought by Mullenix against Brandon for speaking, on the 13th of July 1866, the words of him "that J. D. Mullenix stole a mule; and that he stole a mule, and I will be damned if I can't prove it on him." A verdict was rendered on a plea of not guilty in favor of plaintiff, from which an appeal in error is prosecuted in this court. … It is insisted there was error in excluding two depositions, Jones and Hensley. … It is not objected that the court erred in excluding the depositions of Wells, Morrell and others. … Exception is taken to the action of the court in excluding the deposition of C. B. Headrick. This deposition had been taken by plaintiff and filed in the cause, but plaintiff chose not to read it. Defendant offered to read it in evidence for himself, but on objection the court refused to allow the deposition to be read. This was error. … the case will be reversed and remanded." 58 Tenn. 446, 1872 WL 4048 (Tenn.), 11 Heisk. 446

Supreme Court of Indiana November Term, 1873
Mullinix v. The State

"Buskirk, J. The appellant was convicted under the act of 1859, for selling liquor by retail, without a license. The court, over a motion for a new trial, rendered a judgment on the verdict. … The judgment must be reversed for a failure of proof. There is no evidence in the record showing that the offense was committed in the State of Indiana or in the county of Putnam. … It appears from the evidence that the offense, if any, was committed while the act of March 5th, 1859, was in force. This act was repealed by the act of February 27th, 1873. There is no saving clause. The appellant can not again be put upon trial, the violated law having been repealed, without a clause saving pending actions. … The judgment is reversed, with costs; and the cause is remanded, with directions to the court below to discharge the defendant. 43 Ind. 511 1873 WL 5325 (Ind.)

Supreme Court of Illinois January Term, 1875
George W. Mullinix v. The People of the State of Illinois

"Mr. Chief Justice Walker delivered the opinion of the Court:
"Plaintiff in error was indicted in the Moultrie circuit court, for selling intoxicating liquor to one Harding, 'a person in the habit of getting intoxicated.' There were several counts in the indictment. On a trial the jury found the defendant guilty, on the first and second counts. After overruling a motion for a new trial, the court sentenced the accused to be imprisoned, for twenty days, in the Shelby county jail, and rendered a judgment for a fine of $80, and costs." Many court errors found, including: "It was also in error for the court to order the defendant to be imprisoned in the county jail of another county, specifying it. If there was no jail in Piatt county, it would have not been error for the court, in its judgment, to recite the fact, and to have ordered the sheriff to imprison defendant in the nearest sufficient jail of another county, as the statute requires. … The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the cause remanded." 76 ILL. 211, 1875 WL 8174 (Ill.)

Supreme Court of Iowa April 18, 1877
Ryan & Co. v. Mullinix et al.

"This is an action in equity to set aside, as fraudulent, a conveyance of certain property from the defendant C. P. Mullinix to one A. C. Lockwood and from Lockwood to the defendant Emma Mullinix. The Court rendered a decree for plaintiffs, setting aside the conveyances named. The defendants appeal." … "Appellants insist that the court erred in the admission of evidence of an affidavit made by the defendant, C. P. Mullinix, April 9, 1872." … "On the 16th day of October, 1874, C. P. Mullinix conveyed to his father-in-law, A. C. Lockwood, the property in controversy, being the undivided one-half of two lots in the town of Leon, and about two hundred and twenty-five acres of land. On the 17th day of October, A. C. Lockwood conveyed this property to Emma Mullinix, the wife of the defendant, C. P. Mullinix. The consideration named in these deeds is $3,500. … It is true C. P. Mullinix testifies that the conveyance to Lockwood was made in payment of a debt, without any fraudulent intent. And A. C. Lockwood testifies that the conveyance to him was in consideration of $2,300, which C. P. Mullinix owed him, and mortgages and judgments against Mullinix, which he assumed, amounted to $3,350, and that he conveyed the lands to his daughter because he wanted a home, and to provide for her and her children, as her husband was a habitual drunkard, and squandering his property. … Emma Mullinix testifies as follows: 'My father purchased this property to secure $2,300 that my husband owed him and to secure himself a home, and a home for me and my children, because my husband was drinking and squandering his property. When my father conveyed this property to me I gave him for the same my note for $1,400 and an obligation binding me to maintain him during his life, to pay his traveling expenses and board at the rate of $2 per week when he should be away from home.' "The evidence shows that Lockwood was, at the time of this transaction, a man of small means, his property not exceeding in value five or six thousand dollars. It is not at all reasonable that he should discharge a debt of $2,300, and assume liabilities of $3,500, in consideration of this property, and the next day convey the whole of it to a daughter whose husband was squandering his property in drunkenness, in consideration of a note of $1,400, and an agreement to maintain him during his life. The whole transaction bears unmistakable ear marks of fraud. The judgment of the court below is AFFIRMED, 1877 WL 489 (Iowa)

Supreme Court of Missouri May 16, 1887
Ketchem v. Mullinix and others.

"Norton, C.J. This is an action of ejectment to recover possession of 80 acres of land in Putnam county, described in the petition. Both parties claim the legal title; the plaintiff under a deed from John Mullinix, and the defendant George Mullinix under a tax deed in which it is, among other things, recited that the land in question was assessed for taxes, in 1868, to John Mullinix,--so that said John Mullinix is the common source of title. … We are of the opinion that the [lower court] ruling was correct, inasmuch as the tax deed did not convey, nor purport to convey, the interest of John Mullinix in the land, but states as follows: 'I, James Comstock, collector as aforesaid, do hereby transfer, convey, and assign to the said George Mullinix all the right, title, interest, and estate of the state of Missouri of, in and to the above-described property.' The land in question had never been forfeited to the state, and the state had not title or interest therein to be conveyed. … Judgment affirmed. 4 S.W. 447, 92 Mo. 118

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia September 14, 1889
Mullinax v. Waybright

"This action was commenced on March 17, 1887, before a justice of Pendleton county by Henry Mullinax against James B. Waybright, upon an account for $147. On the return-day of the summons, which was March 26, 1887, the plaintiff and defendant were both present, and the defendant moved for a continuance of the case, 'on the grounds of being without counsel, and the absence of a witness.' The justice having examined the defendant on oath, and thus ascertained that he had made no effort to obtain counsel, and had not had his witness summoned, he overruled the said motion, and ordered the trial of the case. … Two grounds of error are assigned and relied on by the plaintiff … that the justice erred in overruling the motion for a continuance … and that the jury tried the case when no case had been made for it to try. …but as this irregularity of the court did not in any degree prejudice the plaintiff in error, the judgment of the circuit court is also affirmed. 10 S.E. 25, 33 W.Va 84.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas May 6, 1893
Mullinix v. State

"Jim Mullinix was convicted under Pen. Code, art. 180, prohibiting the disturbance of religious worship, and appeals. Appeal dismissed." 22 S.W. 407, 32 Tex.Crim. 116

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas May 9, 1894
Mullinix v. State

"R. M. Mullinix was convicted of incest, and appeals. Affirmed. Conviction for incest, with the punishment assessed at nine years in the penitentiary. The daughter with whom the incestuous intercourse is alleged to have occurred testified positively to the acts constituting the crime of incest. She also testified that she was forced to submit to the desires of her father. If this was true, she was not an accomplice, and her evidence was sufficient to support the conviction. The issue of her relation to the incestuous acts--whether as accomplice or not--was submitted to the jury by the charge of the court. No exceptions were reserved to the charge given, or other rulings had during the trial. As presented by the record, we do not feel authorized to reverse the judgment. It may be seriously doubted if the daughter was corroborated as to the criminal acts, but the jury evidently found against the theory that she was an accomplice, and in that case it would not be necessary to corroborate her in order to support the conviction. The story of the daughter may be true and, having been so found by the jury, we do not feel justified in setting aside their verdict. We might not have so fund. The judgment is affirmed." 26 S.W. 504

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2 October 17, 1898
Judson et ux. V. Mullinax

"Suit by William W. Judson and wife against George T. Mullinax. From a judgment in favor of defendant, plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed. … The Court finds as facts proven in this case that, at the time of the purchase by defendant of the property from the plaintiff, the property the plaintiff claimed to own was inclosed in three inclosures by fences,--the inclosure on which was situated the house, the barnyard, and the pasture lot including lot thirteen and that part of lot twelve west of the post and board fence in controversy. And the court further finds that the part of lot twelve not in said pasture lot was inclosed and used at the time by other parties as a part of the Boyd and Lane property; and that on the land in controversy, east of said fence, was situate at the time an outhouse, a small privy, of the value of three dollars, belonging to the Boyd property; and that a part of the land in controversy, at the time, constituted a part of the garden and yard of the Lane property, and within thirty feet of the house thereon … . The court finds that plaintiff believed he owned 64 feet and 5 inches off the west side of lot 12, and intended to convey to defendant, and defendant believed he was buying, said strip of 64 feet and 5 inches off the west side of said lot 12, and that the deed as written correctly described the land that plaintiff at the time believed he owned and intended to sell to defendant, except that he believed the fence was about the line. … Fully concurring in the judgment of the circuit court, it is affirmed." 47 S.W. 565, 145 Mo. 630

Kansas City Court of Appeals, Missouri May 29, 1899
E. T. Molyneux, Respondent, v. Southwest Missouri Electric Railway Company, Appellant

"This is an action to recover damages for personal injuries in which there was a trial resulting in judgment for plaintiff and defendant appealed. … defendant operates a street railway line over and along Daugherty street in Webb City. It further appears that the said city, just before the time of the plaintiff's injury, had deposited certain sidewalk material, consisting of brick and sand, on the sough side of said street between Roan avenue and Oronogo street. … On the day of plaintiff's injury he was driving in a jog trot a quiet old mare, attached to a cart, westerly along the south side of Daughtery street and when he reached the place where the passway along said street was narrowed by the deposit of said sidewalk materials, he met coming east one of defendant's cars. … The speed of the car was in excess of that permitted by the ordinances of the city. The plaintiff's mare took no notice of the approaching car until it reached a point opposite her, or within a few feet of her, when she shied off toward the sidewalk material and backed the cart until the corner of the bumper of the car came in contact with the rim of one of the cart's wheels, in consequence of which it was wrecked and the plaintiff violently thrown against the sidewalk material, causing the injuries of which he complains. … Some of the plaintiff's witnesses testified that his mare was not frightened but 'only shied off to get away from the wind of the moving car.' The plaintiff contends that as the current of air which frightened his mare was caused by the unlawful speed of defendant's car, therefore such unlawful speed was the direct cause of the injury. … The plaintiff testified when the defendant's car approached within two blocks of him, that he thought his mare might get frightened on account of the speed of the car and for that reason he threw up one hand thinking the defendant's car might stop. It does not appear from the evidence that the defendant's motorman saw plaintiff's signal or, if so, that he understood its significance. While a motorman operating a car in a street of a populous city is bound to exercise that care and vigilance which is commensurate with the danger to be apprehended therefrom, yet, we know of no principle of the law of negligence which enjoins on him the absolute duty to stop his care every time he in notified to do so by any one driving a nervous, skittish horse on the street, or if here no imminent peril is indicated he fails to so stop after such notice and the horse becomes alarmed at the movement of the car and runs away that his company thereby becomes liable for the resulting damages, unless his conduct in the management of the car be attributed only to a wanton or malicious disregard of the safety of the driver. … The judgement will accordingly be reversed. 81 Mo.App. 25, 1899 WL 2013 (Mo.App.)

IMFA Website Notice

Information in this extraction was contributed for use on the IMFA website by Marie Mullenneix Spearman.

In keeping with our policy of providing free information on the Internet, data may be freely used by non-commercial entities, as long as this message remains on all copied material. These electronic pages cannot be reproduced in any format for profit or other presentation.