Blakeney v. Blakeney, 45846
| Decision Date | 25 January 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 45846,45846 |
| Citation | 244 So.2d 3 |
| Parties | B. C. BLAKENEY and Barney Blakeney v. Bernice BLAKENEY, Executor of Estate of James Daniel Blakeney, Deceased, et al. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Pritchard, Neeld, Powell & Pierce, Jackson, for appellants.
Homer Currie, Raleigh, Barnett, Montgomery, McClintock & Cunningham, Jackson, for appellees.
B. C. Blakeney and Barney Blakeney appeal from a final decree of the Chancery Court of Smith County which cancelled as a forgery a deed purporting to have been executed by J. D. Blakeney conveying to B. C. Blakeney land and personalty, the decree also having cancelled a subsequent deed from B. C. Blakeney to Barney Blakeney which attempted to convey to him a portion of the property described in the forged instrument.
J. D. Blakeney was a substantial landowner, owning land in both Smith and Simpson Counties, the same having comprised some 20 separate tracts as described in the allegedly forged instrument. Also embraced in this instrument were numerous items of the personal property of J. D. Blakeney, even including household furniture. The property purporting thus to have been conveyed to B. C. Blakeney comprised the substance of J. D. Blakeney's estate.
The deed bore date of October 26, 1966, and purported to have been witnessed by two persons who subscribed their names thereto.
More than two months after the date of the alleged making of the deed (during which time the deed was not filed for record), on January 2, 1967, J. D. Blakeney made a will which undertook to dispose of his real and personal estate to his children, grandchildren and other relatives. The next day, January 3, 1967, J. D. Blakeney died. Two weeks after J. D. Blakeney died, January 17, 1967, the execution of the purported date was 'proved' by the affidavit of one of the 'witnesses' and it was filed for record. On February 1, 1967, the executrix of the will, together with the devisees and legatees named therein, the latter claiming to be owners of the property comprising J. D. Blakeney's estate which, it was alleged, included the property described in the deed to B. C. Blakeney, filed their bill in the Chancery Court of Smith County seeking cancellation of the October 26, 1966 instrument as a forgery. The bill also sought cancellation of the subsequent deed made by B. C. Blakeney to Barney Blakeney as void because the grantor was without title to the property attempted to be conveyed.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thornhill v. System Fuels, Inc.
...together with all inferences which may be reasonably drawn from it and which support the decree, must be accepted. Blakeney v. Blakeney, 244 So.2d 3, 4 (Miss.1971). Accord Culbreath v. Johnson, 427 So.2d 705, 707 (Miss.1983). We have also stated our scope of review in terms of manifest erro......
-
Lovett v. E.L. Garner, Inc., 56782
...and which may be drawn from the testimony and the exhibits. Cotton v. McConnell, 435 So.2d 683, 685 (Miss.1983); Blakeney v. Blakeney, 244 So.2d 3, 4 (Miss.1971). If, when we review the evidence in this light, we find that there is substantial evidence which would support and is consistent ......
-
Microtek Medical, Inc. v. 3M Co.
...1382 (Miss.1984); Cotton v. McConnell, 435 So.2d 683 (Miss.1983); Cheek v. Ricker, 431 So.2d 1139, 1143 (Miss.1983); Blakeney v. Blakeney, 244 So.2d 3, 4 (Miss.1971). Further, when there are no specific findings of fact, we sometimes assume the trial judge made determinations of fact suffic......
-
Anderson v. Anderson, 94-CA-00870-SCT
... ... Culbreath v. Johnson, 427 So.2d 705, 707 (Miss.1983); Blakeney v. Blakeney, 244 So.2d 3 (Miss.1971). Evidence that supports or reasonably tends to support the ... ...