laid down rule in Mississippi

1964Penney Company v. Evans, 172 Miss. 900 , 160 So. 779 , this Court laid down the rule that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur should be cautiously applied.

1964Penney Company v. Evans, 172 Miss. 900 , 160 So. 779 , this Court laid down the rule that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur should be cautiously applied.

1958In the early case of Steppacher v. Reneau, 25 Miss. 114, 119 , more than one hundred years ago, this Court laid down this rule: “The verdict, according to well established principles, was certainly supported by the testimony.

1942In the case of Williamson v. State, 191 Miss. 643 , 4 So. (2d) 220, 221 , this court laid down the rule that the finding of liquor in the home made out a prima facie case against the husband and father, who in law is the head of the family and in charge of the home, using this language: “And where intoxicating liquor is found on the premises of which the defendant is in possession and control a rebuttable presumption of fact arises that it whs in his *793 possession.” The writer dissented in that case, but the case is binding on us unless and until it is overruled, and we think the rules laid

1942In the case of Williamson v. State, 191 Miss. 643 , 4 So. (2d) 220, 221 , this court laid down the rule that the finding of liquor in the home made out a prima facie case against the husband and father, who in law is the head of the family and in charge of the home, using this language: “And where intoxicating liquor is found on the premises of which the defendant is in possession and control a rebuttable presumption of fact arises that it whs in his *793 possession.” The writer dissented in that case, but the case is binding on us unless and until it is overruled, and we think the rules laid

1927In Lamar v. State, 63 Miss. 265 , the court laid down the rule that to entitle the defendant to a continuance, because of the absence, of witnesses, he must promptly have the witnesses summoned, must ask for an attachment if they fail to appear after being summoned, must apply for a continuance before venire drawn, and set out in his affidavit the name and residence of the absent witnesses and the facts expected to be shown by them, and also what steps have been taken to secure their attendance, and must negative the idea that they are absent with defendant’s consent or procurement, and give t

1918Collins, Attorney General, 103 Miss. 645 , 60 So. 576 , was a case where the court laid down the principle holding that writs of prohibition and mandamus should be tried in the manner prescribed by the statute and that temporary restraining orders should be granted only to prevent irreparable injuries; the court saying in the conclusion of its opinion: “We do not wish to be understood as approving the practice adopted in granting temporary restraining order, which had the effect of deciding the issues involved before the parties in interest could have their day in court.” The case of Pearman v

1918Collins, Attorney General, 103 Miss. 645 , 60 So. 576 , was a case where the court laid down the principle holding that writs of prohibition and mandamus should be tried in the manner prescribed by the statute and that temporary restraining orders should be granted only to prevent irreparable injuries; the court saying in the conclusion of its opinion: “We do not wish to be understood as approving the practice adopted in granting temporary restraining order, which had the effect of deciding the issues involved before the parties in interest could have their day in court.” The case of Pearman v

1918Collins, Attorney General, 103 Miss. 645 , 60 So. 576 , was a case where the court laid down the principle holding that writs of prohibition and mandamus should be tried in the manner prescribed by the statute and that temporary restraining orders should be granted only to prevent irreparable injuries; the court saying in the conclusion of its opinion: “We do not wish to be understood as approving the practice adopted in granting temporary restraining order, which had the effect of deciding the issues involved before the parties in interest could have their day in court.” The case of Pearman v

1918Collins, Attorney General, 103 Miss. 645 , 60 So. 576 , was a case where the court laid down the principle holding that writs of prohibition and mandamus should be tried in the manner prescribed by the statute and that temporary restraining orders should be granted only to prevent irreparable injuries; the court saying in the conclusion of its opinion: “We do not wish to be understood as approving the practice adopted in granting temporary restraining order, which had the effect of deciding the issues involved before the parties in interest could have their day in court.” The case of Pearman v