McLeod v. Magee

• Decision Date: 17 May 1909
• Docket Number: 13,458
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: SAMUEL P. MCLEOD ET AL. v. LEWIS E. MAGEE ET AL

50 So. 66

95 Miss. 439

SAMUEL P. MCLEOD ET AL. v. LEWIS E. MAGEE ET AL

No. 13,458

Supreme Court of Mississippi

May 17, 1909

FROM the chancery court of Simpson county, HON. JAMES L MCCASKILL, Chancellor.

Magee appellee and cross-appellant, was complainant and cross-defendant in the court below; McLeod and wife appellants and cross- appellees, and one Womack, an appellee and cross-appellant, were defendants and cross-complainants there. From a final decree upon the merits, unsatisfactory to all of the parties, McLeod and wife appealed, and Magee and wife and Womack separately prosecuted cross-appeals, to the supreme court.

The suit involved matters of accounting, wherein each of the several parties concerned admitted sundry items of indebtedness to the others and claimed sundry credits. There was much evidence taken in regard to a certain store account which Magee owed to the Mendenhall Mercantile Company, it being contended by McLeod and wife that Magee was due them $ 107 as a result of Magee's dealings with that company and the assignment of the account to them by the company, but the same was not presented by the pleadings in the case, nor was it shown that the McLeods had paid the mercantile company or received an assignment of the account from it. On the trial Magee objected to any consideration by the court below of this item of $ 107, claiming that it was irrelevant under the pleadings. The court below, however, gave credit in favor of the McLeods against Magee for the item, and, as between the McLeods and Womack, rendered a decree, under the accounting in favor of Womack against the McLeods for $ 262.88.

The suit also involved the question of the transfer by the McLeods to Womack, before its maturity, of a promissory note for $ 1,193 which had been executed in their favor by Magee and which was endorsed to Womack without recourse. Partial payments had been made on the note by Magee before its assignment to Womack, and the amount for which the McLeods should have credit against Womack by reason of the payments on the note, was in dispute, but an agreement on this point was reached by the solicitors of record, as stated in the opinion.

Reversed.

Hilton & Hilton, and Chalmers Alexander, for appellants and cross-appellees, McLeod and wife.

It is contended for the appellants, McLeod and wife, that in the accounting between the McLeods and Womack the court below erred in allowing them a much less sum as credit against Womack than the face of the note. The note had been assigned to Womack without recourse, and appellants were entitled to credit to the full extent of the amount shown by the note to be due by Magee. Bank of Holly Springs v. Pinson, 58 Miss. 421.

R. P. Willing, for appellee and cross-appellant, Womack.

As between Womack and the McLeods the credit given on the note of Magee's in question was correct, although it was less than the face of the note. While it is true that the note was assigned by McLeod and wife to Womack without recourse, yet the...