Powell v. Tomlinson

• Decision Date: 10 July 1922
• Docket Number: 22616
• Citation: 129 Miss. 658,92 So. 583
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: POWELL v. TOMLINSON

92 So. 583

129 Miss. 658

POWELL v. TOMLINSON

No. 22616

Supreme Court of Mississippi

July 10, 1922

On suggestion of error. Suggestion of error overruled.

For former opinion, see 92 So. 226.

Suggestion of error overruled.

OPINION

ANDERSON, J.

Appellant admits that the conclusions of law announced by the court in its opinion are sound, but insists that the facts to which they were applied are not in the record.

In determining the correctness of a judgment of a trial court, all facts necessary to support such judgment either proven directly or reasonably inferable from the proven facts are to be taken as true. Applying that principle here, it appears that appellant in the early part of 1921 took from his tenant, Wesley Leseure, and his wife, a deed of trust on stock either owned by one or the other or both, as well as on the crops to be raised by them on appellant's farm during that year, to secure supplies to be advanced them by appellant with which to make such crops, and also to secure the balance due appellant by his said tenant, Wesley Leseure, for the previous year, the due date of all which indebtedness was some time in the fall of 1921. These facts are fairly deducible from appellant's own testimony while on the witness stand in his own behalf. The questions propounded to him on this proposition and his answers thereto are in the following language:

"Q. You have a deed of trust on Wesley's crop for this year have you not? (No answer.) Q. You have a deed of trust on Wesley Leseure's crop and some stock? A. Yes, sir. Q. And that deed of trust recites for supplies and money furnished? A. Yes, sir; I think it is for this year (1921). Q. I will ask you this, This is an account that Wesley Leseure owes you? (referring to balance due for 1920). A. Wes, Mary, and the whole thing."

It is true that in other parts of appellant's testimony it appears uncertain whether Wesley Leseure, the tenant, joined in the last deed of trust or not, but the trial court had the right to take appellant's evidence most strongly against him. And, furthermore, at the time the second deed of trust was taken both Wesley Leseure and his wife were tenants on appellant's place for the year 1921 and were being furnished with supplies by appellant with which to make a crop on his farm. It certainly would not be an unreasonable inference from the proven facts that the second deed of trust, although not joined in by Wesley...