Mississippi Code

Miss. Code Ann. § 11-3-37 (2026)

Appellant not entitled to reversal for error as to another

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaMiss. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

In all cases, civil and criminal, a judgment or decree appealed from may be affirmed as to some of the appellants and be reversed as to others; and one of several appellants shall not be entitled to a judgment of reversal because of an error in the judgment or decree against another, not affecting his rights in the case. And when a judgment or decree shall be affirmed as to some of the appellants and be reversed as to others, the case shall thereafter be proceeded with, so far as necessary, as if the separate suits had been begun and prosecuted; and execution of the judgment of affirmance may be had accordingly. Costs may be adjudged in such cases as the supreme court shall deem proper.

Codes 1880, § 1440; 1892, § 4378; 1906, § 4944; Hemingway's 1917, § 3220; 1930, § 3404; 1942, § 1988.


Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1975–2024 · leading case: Mauck v. Columbus Hotel Co., 741 So. 2d 259 (Miss. 1999).
Mauck v. Columbus Hotel Co., 741 So. 2d 259 (Miss. 1999). · cites it 5× “In support of this contention they cite Miss.Code Ann. § 11-3-37 (1991), which reads as follows: *264 § 11-3-37.”
Mariner Health Care v. Est. of Edwards, 964 So. 2d 1138 (Miss. 2007). · cites it 2× “However, under Mississippi Code Annotated Section 11-3-37 (Rev.2002), "one of several appellants shall not be entitled to a judgment of reversal because of an error in the judgment or decree against another, not affecting his rights in the case.”
Capital Transp. Co. v. Mcduff, 319 So. 2d 658 (Miss. 1975). · cites it 4× “While Mississippi may, in a sense, be said to be in the minority on this question, this state has a statute, Mississippi Code Annotated section 11-3-37 (1972) which places the appellant here in a different posture from that which he would occupy in other states having no such…”
Meena v. Wilburn, 603 So. 2d 866 (Miss. 1992). “§ 11-3-37 (1972)). 3. In sum, under authority of this Court's holdings in Golden Flake and Capital Transport, Meena's contention — that the *873 jury improperly returned a verdict against him but not his nurse — is rejected.”
Harris v. Harris, 879 So. 2d 457 (Miss. Ct. App. 2004). “§ 11-3-37 (Rev. 2002). III. WHETHER THE CHANCELLOR ERRED IN NOT TERMINATING WINSTON'S ALIMONY OBLIGATION TO JANNA.”
Eddie Gray Holt a/k/a Eddie Holt a/k/a Eddie Grey Holt v. State of Mississippi (Miss. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 2× “, Miss. Code Ann. § 11-3-37 (Rev. 2019) (“In all cases, civil and criminal, a judgment or decree appealed from may be affirmed as to some of the appellants and be reversed as to others .”
Columbus Hotel Co. v. Charles N. White (Miss. 1990). · cites it 5× “In support of this contention they cite Miss. Code Ann. § 11-3-37 (1991), which reads as follows: § 11-3-37.”
Mariner Health Care, Inc. v. Nevonnia Turner (Miss. 2004). · cites it 2× “However, under Mississippi Code Annotated Section 11-3-37 (Rev. 2002), “one of several appellants shall not be entitled to a judgment of reversal because of an error in the judgment or decree against another, not affecting his rights in the case.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.