Handshoe v. Daly, 37876
| Decision Date | 19 March 1951 |
| Docket Number | No. 37876,37876 |
| Citation | 51 So.2d 230,211 Miss. 189 |
| Parties | HANDSHOE et al. v. DALY et al. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Quitman Ross, Collins & Collins, all of Laurel, for appellants.
Welch, Cooper & Welch, Laurel, for appellees.
HOLMES, Commissioner.
Appellees, Gus Daly, Harvey E. Bishop, C. H. Sims, W. M. Bethea and Thad Landrum, brought this suit in the Circuit Court of the Second Judicial District of Jones County against Joseph C. and Marion R. Handshoe, the appellants, and the Commercial National Bank and Trust Company of Laurel, and Walter L. Tillery, asserting and seeking to enforce, pursuant to Sections 356 to 367, both inclusive, of the Mississippi Code of 1942, a lien for labor and materials alleged to have been furnished in the construction by appellants of a dwelling house on a certain lot owned by them in the City of Laurel. Grady Derrick, and L. O. Walters intervened in the suit asserting and seeking to enforce a like lien.
Appellants answered, denying any contractual relations with or liability to the claimants, and averring that they entered into a contract with Walter L. Tillery to construct the house according to adopted plans and specifications, and to furnish all labor and material therefor, for a fixed sum, and that Tillery had been fully paid prior to notice of said claims, and that if anything was owing on said claims it was owing by Tillery and not the appellants.
Tillery answered denying that the house was constructed pursuant to a contract entered into between him and appellants whereby he agreed to construct the house and furnish all labor and materials therefor for a fixed sum, and denying all liability to the said claimants and averring that he was employed by the appellants to construct the house on a modified cost-plus basis, that is to say, on a basis whereby the appellants were to pay for the labor and material and in addition thereto were to pay Tillery ten percent of the total cost for his services. Tillery further averred that he was authorized by appellants to employ labor and purchase material and was to be refunded by appellants for any sums paid by him therefor. He further averred that appellants departed from time to time from the original plans and specifications, and hired labor and made purchases of material and that statements thereof were in the possession of appellants, and he called on appellants to produce the same and appellants declined. He further asserted a claim against appellants for reimbursement of the sums which he had advanced for labor and material and for ten percent of the total cost to compensate him for his services and claimed a lien therefor on the house and lot, and in his final pleading he filed an itemized statement of the total cost, exclusive only of those items of labor and material arranged for by appellants and statements for which were rendered to appellants and not available to him.
Numerous motions and amended pleadings were filed in the course of the proceedings, and the cause, on the motion of Tillery, was transferred to the Chancery Court where the pleadings were revamped to conform to chancery practice, and the cause proceeded to trial in the chancery court on the pleadings and proof, resulting in a decree adverse to appellants, and from which decree this appeal is prosecuted.
No serious contest was raised by any of ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
West v. State
...because the statement was of a contemporaneous fact, and not offered for the truth or falsity of the statement. See: Handshoe v. Daly, 211 Miss. 189, 51 So.2d 230 (1951); Lawler v. Skelton, 241 Miss. 274, 130 So.2d 565, 568 (Miss.1961); Wilson v. State, 390 So.2d 575, 578 SEXY FROG West had......
-
Tolbert v. State, 52925
...truth or falsity of such statement, the statement is admissible in evidence as an independently relevant fact." Handshoe v. Daly, (211 Miss. 189, 193, 51 So.2d 230, 232 (1951) ). See 31A C.J.S. Evidence Sec. 239 (1964).... Also Lawler v. Skelton, (241 Miss. 274, 130 So.2d 565 (1961) ). Fran......
-
Wilson v. State
...show the apprehensive state of mind of (345 So.2d at 1050). the defendant at the time of the fatal encounter. Handshoe et al. v. Daly et al., 211 Miss. 189, 51 So.2d 230 (1951) held This testimony was admissible as an independently relevant fact to explain the circumstances under which thes......
-
Lawler v. Skelton
...but whether it was said. The fact that the statement was made was a fact relevant to whether Dr. Aden was so notified. Handshoe v. Daly, 1951, 211 Miss. 189, 51 So.2d 230; 31 C.J.S. Evidence § 239, p. There was also some dispute as to whether Martin was doing the spraying on the date allege......