Hamblett v. Jones

• Decision Date: 12 November 1928
• Docket Number: 27401
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: HAMBLETT v. JONES. [*]

118 So. 711

152 Miss. 120

HAMBLETT v. JONES. ^[*]

No. 27401

Supreme Court of Mississippi

November 12, 1928

Division A

Suggestion of Error Overruled Nov. 26, 1928, APPEAL from chancery court of Quitman county.

HON ROWE HAYS, Special Chancellor.

Suit by Mary Jones against F. M. Hamblett. Decree for complainant and defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.

Decree reversed and remanded.

W. M. Donaldson, for appellant.

The argument will fall into two main heads: 1st. The authority vel non of the regular chancellor to make or sign any decrees or orders whatsoever in this case; 2nd. Whether the decree made and entered as the final decree herein was in fact according to the findings of the chancellor appointed to hear the case and supported by the evidence. Commander v. Brazil, 41 So. 497.

It is our contention that the regular chancellor had absolutely no authority to make and enter any orders or decrees whatsoever in the case, he being disqualified and a special chancellor having been duly appointed and commissioned to hear and determine the case.

The special chancellor had made no decree nor signed any before has death. A decree has no validity until signed by the chancellor. Howard v. Jake, 124 Miss. 65, 86 So. 752.

The general rule in equity is that the oral or written opinion of the chancellor and his directions for the preparation of a decree are not actually a decree, or any part of a decree. Griffith's Chancery Practice, 704, Note 69. See section 753, Hemingway's Code 1927, sec. 717, Hemingway's Code of 1917; R. R. Company v. Bowles, 71 Miss. 994, 16 So. 235; Dodd v. Kelley, 65 So. 561; Lopez v. Jackson, 79 Miss. 460, 31 So. 206; Sec. 267, Hem. Code of 1927; Callicott v. Horn, 137 Miss. 693, 102 So. 850; Newman Lumber Co. v. Pace, 102 So. 570; Littlefield et al. v. Aiken, 265 P. 1054; Ferguson v. Bobo, 54 Miss. 121, 125; Ostrander v. Quinn, 36 So. 257; Levy v. Gray, 56 Miss. 318; Brantly v. Wolfe, 60 Miss. 430; Yeager v. Knight, 60 Mass. 732; Willis v. Brooks, 45 Miss. 542; Upshaw v. Gibbon, 53 Miss. 341; 9 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1117 & Note; 57 L. R. A., pages 686, 687, 688, notes; LaRosa v. Nichols, 6 A. L. R. 412; Stalliford v. Sutherland, 18 A. L. R. 516.

Brewer & Brewer, for appellee.

See Griffith's Chancery Practice, 91, Note 50.

In Lopez v. Jackson, 79 Miss. 460, 31 So. 206, cited by appellant, it was held that the minutes of the court are to be signed by the regular judge, but all orders pertaining to the merits or conduct of the suit, by the special judge. The final decree in a case is in one sense an order but not the kind of order referred to in the Lopez case as pertaining to the merits or conduct of a case. The final decree in the case at bar was given its validity when placed upon the minutes of the court by the clerk and the minutes then signed by the regular judge. Had Mr. Hays been the judge for the term of court, then the minutes would have been signed by him, but he held no such authority and it will not be disputed that the regular chancellor was the proper person to approve and sign the minutes.

As to the sufficiency of the evidence see: Pierce v. Garrett, 107 Miss. 885, 142 So. 641; Aaron v. Citizens Ins. Co. of Mo., 110 So. 120; McCarty v. Love, 110 So. 795; Watkins v. Watkins, 106 So. 753, 142 Miss. 510; Bacot v. Holloway, 104 Miss. 696, -- So. 120; Ayers v. Tonkel, 103 Miss. 361, -- So. 712; Rhymes v. Boggiss, 111 So. 844; Crump v. Tucker, 115 So. 397; Rawlings v. Anderson, 115 So. 714; Carter v. Eastman Gardner Lbr. Co., 95 Miss. 657.

OPINION

MCGOWEN, J.

Mary Jones, the appellee, exhibited her bill in the chancery court of Quitman county against F. M. Hamblett, the appellant, seeking a cancellation of her deed to F. M. Hamblett, the appellant, on two grounds: (1) Because she executed a deed while under the disability of minority; and (2) that she was overreached in the transaction.

There was a decree signed by the regular presiding chancellor of that district for the appellee, canceling the deed in question upon the appellee's repaying to the appellant all the money which he had paid out under and by virtue of the stipulations in the deed. Hamblett, the appellant, prosecutes an appeal here.

We deem it unnecessary to set out the facts on the main issue in this controversy, and shall confine this decision to one point which necessitates a reversal of this case.

The decree recites, and the record shows, that the regular chancellor of the district was disqualified, and that the Honorable Rowe Hays, a member of the bar, was agreed upon by counsel to try the case, but the record further discloses that the Honorable Rowe Hays was duly commissioned by the Governor to try and dispose of this case, and it is further shown from the stenographer's notes that the said Hays was the presiding judge on the taking of the testimony.

There is a dispute in the record between counsel as to whether the case was tried by Hays by agreement of counsel or by appointment of the Governor.

The decree appears to have been based on a letter written by the Honorable Rowe Hays to the solicitors engaged in the case. The pertinent part of the decree and the letter read as follows:

"This cause this day coming on to be heard upon the original bill of complaint and Exhibits thereto, and upon answer of the defendant, F. M. Hamblett, and upon the cross-bill and supplemental answer and cross-bill, and upon answers of all cross-defendants, and upon the injunction sued out, and upon all the pleadings in the cause, it having been agreed by all the parties hereto that all issues raised by any and all of the pleadings be settled in this suit, and

"It appearing to the court that the regular Chancellor Harvey McGehee, suggested his disqualification in this one cause and, that, thereupon Hon. Rowe Hays, a member of the bar, was selected and agreed upon to hear and decide said cause, and all the issues therein as raised by the pleadings, and that, thereupon, the said Rowe Hays, sitting in said cause, did hear and consider all the evidence, both oral and documentary, and the argument of counsel, and after mature consideration, decided said cause and gave his opinion in writing, the same being signed by him in his own handwriting and being as follows:

"'Mary Jones etc. v. F. M. Hamblett.

"'Mr. W. M. Donaldson

"'Messrs. Gore & Gore, Marks, Miss.

"'Mr. Ed. Brewer, Clarksdale, Miss.

"'Gentlemen My views of the case as made out are such that the decree must be for complainant. That is, the deed from her to defendant will be set aside upon her repayment to him of such sum or sums of money as he has paid under the deed to her or on account of the land. Such reimbursement will bear interest at six per centum from the date of payment by the defendant. My understanding is that Hamblett has not been in possession or had the use of the land. I take it, also, that the trust deed from the defendant to the bank insofar as it purports to be a lien on this land, if not already satisfied, will be canceled of record when a decree is entered. Otherwise, decree will make provision as to this lien. I take it that attorneys will readily agree upon the total sum to be reimbursed defendant. It follows that the relief sought by defendant in his cross-bill will be denied. Also, that the injunction sued out and granted upon his supplemental cross-bill will be dissolved. Statutory damages only will be allowed. The decree will recognize the paramount lien for attorney's fee on the land, and the assignment of the sum and lien therefor to Miss White as being good and valid. I take it that the attorneys will draft such decree as is called for by the pleadings, and my decision as to the facts and the law, and that as soon as they agree upon the decree, it will be forwarded to me to be referred to the chancellor or clerk for entry. I...