Early v. U. S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co

• Decision Date: 15 November 1937
• Docket Number: 32891
• Citation: 176 So. 720,181 Miss. 162
• Parties: EARLY v. U. S. FIDELITY & GUARANTY CO
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court

176 So. 720

181 Miss. 162

EARLY v. U. S. FIDELITY & GUARANTY CO

No. 32891

Supreme Court of Mississippi

November 15, 1937

Division B

APPEAL AND ERROR.

Where either of two conclusions from reasonable inferences is justified by evidence, conclusion reached by chancellor must be accepted as correct, and Supreme Court will interfere only when it is clearly manifest that chancellor should have accepted the opposite view.

HON JAMES A. FINLEY, Chancellor.

APPEAL from chancery court of Aleorn county HON. JAMES A. FINLEY Chancellor.

Suit between Thomas A. Early, receiver, etc., and U.S. Fidelity &amp Guaranty Company. From the decree, the first named party appeals. Affirmed.

Affirmed.

Chester L. Sumners, of Corinth, and Fred B. Smith, of Ripley, for appellant.

The opinion of the court was in the following language: "The court is of the opinion that the evidence fails to show any fraudulent or dishonest act or breach of trust on the part of Mr. Hazard; therefore the bill will be dismissed at the cost of the complainant."

This is not a case, as shown by the opinion of the court, where the court was passing on the credibility of the witnesses, or deciding a controverted issue of fact about which there was a conflict in the testimony. In fact, taking the admissions of the appellee in the record and the undisputed facts, there is very little conflict in the testimony. The real issue is whether the facts and z admissions established constitute a breach of the bond, and whether the conclusions of the Chancellor were the correct legal conclusions under the facts established by the record.

All of the facts pertinent to the issues involved were fully produced in the trial of this cause, clearly showing that the Bank, the appellant, suffered losses far in excess of $ 10,000, which is the limited amount of recovery. The admissions of appellee on each item as set out in the record are sufficient to entitle the appellant to a judgment on the bond.

Therefore, the appellant respectfully submits that this court should reverse this case and the decision of the trial court, and render a decree and judgment here in favor of the appellant and against the appellee for the maximum amount of recovery under said bond and in the sum of $ 10,000 with interest as allowed by law from September 27, 1932, the date of the proof of claim.

Ely B. Mitchell and W. C. Sweat, both of Corinth, for appellee.

The findings of fact by the Chancellor will not be disturbed on appeal unless the same is against the overwhelming weight of thez testimony.

Herd v Cotrell, 100 Miss. 42, 56 So. 277; Loft v. Hull, 104 Miss. 308, 61 So. 421; Grace v. Pierce, 127 Miss. 83, 90 So. 590; Scott v. Perry, 140 Miss. 452, 106 So. 12; Seller Motor Co. v. Champion Spark Plug Co., 150 Miss. 473, 116 So. 833; Babcock v. Holloway, ...