Riechman-Crosby Co. v. Dinwiddie
| Citation | 117 Miss. 103,77 So. 906 |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Decision Date | 11 March 1918 |
| Parties | RIECHMAN-CROSBY CO. v. DINWIDDIE |
ON SUGGESTION OF ERROR. For former report see 77 So. 533.
APPEAL from the chancery court of Quitman county, HON. JOE MAY, Chancellor.
Suit between the Riechman-Crosby Company and R. Dinwiddie.
From a decree for the latter, the former appeals.
Suggestion of error overruled.
This case was decided without an opinion and affirmed on a former day of this court. 77 So. 533. Suggestion of error has been filed in which it is insisted that we either did not understand the record or were misled as to the issue presented. In response to the suggestion of error we desire to say that we recognize the right of an agent to testify on the witness stand as to the scope of his agency and the extent of his powers, and that this is different from a mere admission not made in the courts. Of course, an agent's admissions outside of court and off the witness stand are not competent to show the fact of his agency or the extent of his power. Neither did we base the decision upon the question of the statute of limitations presented in the case, being of the opinion that, the appellee being a nonresident, the statute would not run against him.
But Dinwiddie testified contradicting appellant's proof, and we think that on this conflict of evidence the chancellor could well find for Dinwiddie. The testimony of complainant tended to show that the goods were ordered for and used by defendant, Sanders. But the testimony for defendant contradicted the complainant's proof as to this. The decree of the chancellor does not disclose the grounds of his decision, nor has he made a finding of fact. The record presenting a conflict of facts, and the chancellor having found generally for the defendant, and as we are not able to say that he was manifestly wrong in so finding, the suggestion of error will be overruled.
Overruled.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stirling v. Logue
... ... 111 Miss. 39, 71 So. 260; (1917) Johnson v. Yazoo ... County, 113 Miss. 435, 74 So. 321; (1918) ... Reichman-Crosby Co. v. Dinwiddie, 117 Miss. 103, 77 ... So. 906; (1919) Glover v. Falls, 82 So. 4; ... Gillis v. Smith, 114 Miss. 665, 75 So. 451; ... Bradbury v. McLendon, ... ...
- Southern Ry. Co. v. Maxwell
-
Miller v. Henry, Ins. Com'r
...court should not override the chancellor's finding of fact. Starnes v. Nation, 97 So. 881; Lot v. Hall, 104 Miss. 308; Reichman Crosby Co. v. Dinwiddie, 117 Miss. 103; Johnson v. Board of Supervisors, 113 Miss. 435; Bank v. Cole, 111 Miss. Humber v. Humber, 109 Miss. 217; Evans v. Sharbroug......
-
Jordan v. Federal Compress & Warehouse Co.
...106 Miss. 687; Freeman case, 107 Miss. 570; Humber case, 109 Miss. 216; Bank case, 111 Miss. 39; Johnson case, 113 Miss. 435; Dinwiddie case, 117 Miss. 103; Glover case, 120 Miss. 201; Grace case, 127 Miss. A warehouseman has burden of showing lawful excuse for failure to deliver cotton sto......