Blair v. McMillion

• Decision Date: 24 September 1934
• Docket Number: 31208
• Citation: 171 Miss. 33,156 So. 519
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: BLAIR et al. v. MCMILLION et al

156 So. 519

171 Miss. 33

BLAIR et al. v. MCMILLION et al

No. 31208

Supreme Court of Mississippi

September 24, 1934

Division B

Suggestion Of Error Overruled, October 22, 1934.

APPEAL from chancery court of Pike county HON. R. W. CUTRER Chancellor.

Proceeding between J. C. Blair and others and John R. McMillion and others. From an adverse decree, J. C. Blair and others appeal. Affirmed.

Affirmed.

Price, Cassidy & McLain, of McComb, for appellants.

The chancellor's findings and decree are totally unsupported by an evidence whatsoever, as shown by this record.

It is evident that the chancellor was confused by the appellee's answer which alleged that Peach street had been widened, and that he inadvertently overlooked the fact that the testimony showed conclusively that Peach street had been narrowed.

Williams & Hunt, of McComb, for appellees.

This being a question of fact and the court having decided the question of fact, and the same being in accord with the facts and not manifestly erroneous, this court will not disturb the finding of the chancellor.

Heard v. Cottrell, 100 Miss. 42, 56 So. 277; Lott v. Hull, 104 Miss. 308, 61 So. 421; Southern Plantations Co. v. Kennedy Reading Co., 104 Miss. 131, 61 So. 166; Bland v. Bland, 105 Miss. 478, 62 So. 641; Lee v. Wilkinson, 105 Miss. 358, 62 So. 275; Evans v. Sharborough, 106 Miss. 687, 64 So. 466; Freeman v. Freeman, 107 Miss. 750, 66 So. 202; Humber v. Humber, 109 Miss. 216, 68 So. 161; Bank of Lauderdale v. Cole, 111 Miss. 39, 71 So. 260; Johnson v. Yazoo County, 113 Miss. 435, 74 So. 321; Reichman-Crosby Co. v. Dinwiddie, 117 Miss. 103, 77 So.

A decree on controverted facts is analogous to the verdict of the jury and will not be reversed unless shown to be opposed to the weight or preponderance of the testimony.

Davies v. Richmond, 45 Miss. 499; Apple v. Gabong, 47 Miss. 189; Harrington v. Allen, 48 Miss. 492; Wilson v. Beauchamp, 50 Miss. 24; Thompson v. Poe, 104 Miss. 586; Woodmen of the World v. McDonald, 109 Miss. 167; Mardis v. Yazoo & M. V. Railroad, 115 Miss. 734; Estes v. Jones, 119 Miss. 142; St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Bowles, 107 Miss. 97.

Argued orally by Will G. McLain, for appellant, and by E. G. Williams, for appellee.

OPINION

Anderson, J.

The question involved in this case is the correct location of the north and south line between the lots of appellants and appellees in square sixty-three in the city of McComb. The issue between the parties is purely one of fact; there is no controversy as to the law of the case. Appellants concede that to be true, but contend that the decree against them ought to be reversed because it is against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. In other words, they concede that there was evidence supporting the decree, but contend that in value it was wholly insufficient to sustain the chancellor's finding. It may be true (we do not decide whether or not it is) that at the conclusion of the testimony of the witnesses the overwhelming weight of the evidence was with appellants; still the decree must be affirmed because of what then took place.

Appellants requested...