Gregory v. Williams
| Decision Date | 10 May 1948 |
| Docket Number | 36671. |
| Citation | 35 So.2d 451,203 Miss. 455 |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Parties | GREGORY et al. v. WILLIAMS. |
Harold Cox, of Jackson, for appellants.
Alexander, Alexander & Chill, of Jackson, for appellee.
On September 25, 1943, J. T. Williams & Company, a partnership, entered into a written contract with Mid-South Paving Company, a partnership, and Trinidad Asphalt Manufacturing Company, a corporation, under which Williams leased to the other parties certain machinery and equipment constituting a plant for the manufacture of asphalt.
On November 29, 1944, Williams filed a suit in the Chancery Court of Hinds County, Mississippi, against the lessees to recover from them the following items under that contract:
$6,013.48, damage caused by the alleged neglect and misuse of the equipment by the defendants;
$360 the amount required to repair one Hercules Diesel Power Unit made necessary because of neglect and misuse of that unit by defendants;
$365 the value of one fuel pump, and
$225 the value of one steam generator, which two articles complainants alleged, defendants failed to return to lessor;
$1,440, estimated freight had the equipment been reshipped from Kolola Springs, Mississippi, to Demopolis, Alabama, and
$1,121.37, expense incurred by complainant in dismantling and loading the plant onto freight cars at, or near, Kolola Springs for shipment to a purchaser thereof from lessor.
After decision in the Chancery Court the case was appealed to this Court and is reported in Williams v. Mid-South Paving Co., 25 So.2d 792, 795. The cause was remanded and limited to the claimed liability for (1) repairs to the Diesel Unit, (2) failure to return the fuel pump, (3) failure to return the steam generator, and (4) for the estimated return freight charges.
After remand to the Chancery Court the cause, by agreement, was transferred to the Circuit Court. On February 12, 1947, a declaration was filed in the Circuit Court for recovery of the four items just mentioned. On the trial the jury found that defendants owed plaintiff $150 for repairs to the Diesel Unit and $75 for failure to return the fuel pump, and, pursuant to directions from the trial Judge, $496.79 for estimated amount of freight to return the property to Demopolis. It returned a verdict for defendants on the charge of failure to return the steam generator. Judgment was, therefore, entered for plaintiff against defendants for the sum of $721.79, from which defendants appeal.
The judgment was taken in favor of Mrs. Starlight B. Williams alone. It is contended by appellants that this could not legally be done; that it is not shown that Mrs. Williams was the sole owner of the rights of lessors under the contract. The rental contract was signed in the name of J. T. Williams & Company 'By J. T. Williams, One of the Partners,' and recites that at that time the partnership was composed of J. T. Williams, Mrs. Starlight B. Williams and H. L. Downing. An amended bill of complaint, based upon this contract, was filed in said Chancery Court suit November 29, 1944, and it is therein recited that the partnership was then composed of J. T. Williams and Mrs. Starlight B. Williams. There was no pleading in that chancery suit challenging the right of J. T. Williams and Mrs. Starlight B. Williams to bring that suit. On September 5, 1945, the said Chancery Court entered the following order:
'Upon the suggestion made in open court of the death of J. T. Williams, one of the complainants, and that the remaining complainant, Mrs. Starlight B. Williams, is the sole legatee of the said J. T. Williams, deceased,
'It is hereby ordered and decreed that the said cause is revived in the name of Mrs. Starlight B. Williams sole complainant herein.'
No point appears to have been made as to the correctness of that order.
In the opinion of this Court on said appeal it was said:
After the remand by this Court and the transfer to the Circuit Court no plea of misjoinder or non-joinder of plaintiffs seems to have been interposed. See Sections 1750, 1751, and 1459, Mississippi Code of 1942. We, therefore, conclude this contention is not well taken.
The trial judge instructed the jury to find for the plaintiff for $496.79 for return freight. The contract provides that '* * * at the expiration or earlier termination of this contract, tenant is to deliver and surrender said equipment and plant to landlord to a place to be designated by landlord, and pay return transportation on same in equal...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Singley v. Smith
...and probability. It is that evidence which, after examination, has a greater persuasive and convincing force. Gregory v. Williams, 203 Miss. 455, 35 So.2d 451, 453 (1948). It is evidence which has more convincing force and produces the belief that what is sought to be proved is more probabl......
-
City of Meridian v. Hodge
...simply means that the evidence which shows that the fact to be proved is more probable than not." This Court in Gregory v. Williams, 203 Miss. 455, 35 So.2d 451 (1948), in introducing an element of comparison for believable evidence stated that preponderance of the evidence was "evidence mo......
-
Gardner v. Wilkinson
...elsewhere, simply means that evidence which shows that the fact to be proved is more probable than not. See, e. g., Gregory v. Williams, 203 Miss. 455, 35 So.2d 451 (1948); Braud v. Kinchen, 310 So.2d 657 (La.App.1975). Courts have more difficulty precisely defining "clear and convincing ev......
-
Higgins v. State
...in opposition thereto, or such evidence as, when weighed with that opposed to it, has more convincing force.” Gregory v. Williams, 203 Miss. 455, 469, 35 So.2d 451, 453 (1948).¶ 14. Here, the trial court noted, twice, that there is a stark contrast between being innocent until proven guilty......