Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
  • Wm. E. Andrews, Jr., Jesse W. Shanks, Purvis, for appellant. I. The judgment of the Court is contrary to the law and the facts. II. The Court erred in finding and adjudging that no contract existed between the appellant and appellee. III. The Court erred in not requiring the appellee to furnish a true and correct accounting of the wholesale price plus 10% of the materials purchased by the appellant from the appellee. Bobby J. Garraway, Lumberton, for appellee. I. The burden of proof rests on the party asserting a contract and, until said party meets such burden, he is not entitled to rely on the alleged contract to sustain his position. Bradley v. Howell, 161 Miss. 346, 133 So. 660; Brooks v. Brooks, 145 Miss. 845, 111 So. 376; Conrad v. Jackson, 89 Fla. 2, 103 So. 113; 17 C.J.S. 359-361, 364, 1216, 1217, 1222; Restatement of the Law of Contracts, Sec. 22. II. There is a presumption that the finding of the Chancellor was correct and said finding should not be reversed unless shown to be manifestly wrong. Aaron v. Citizens Insurance Co. of Mo., 144 Miss. 480, 110 So. 120; Craft v. Standard Accident Insurance Co., 23 Ala. 246, 123 So. 265; Ellis v. Pellegrini, 163 Miss. 385, 141 So. 273; Powell v. Tomlinson, 129 Miss. 658, 92 So. 583.
Judges
  • HALL, P.J.
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
  • Wm. E. Andrews, Jr., Jesse W. Shanks, Purvis, for appellant. I. The judgment of the Court is contrary to the law and the facts. II. The Court erred in finding and adjudging that no contract existed between the appellant and appellee. III. The Court erred in not requiring the appellee to furnish a true and correct accounting of the wholesale price plus 10% of the materials purchased by the appellant from the appellee. Bobby J. Garraway, Lumberton, for appellee. I. The burden of proof rests on the party asserting a contract and, until said party meets such burden, he is not entitled to rely on the alleged contract to sustain his position. Bradley v. Howell, 161 Miss. 346, 133 So. 660; Brooks v. Brooks, 145 Miss. 845, 111 So. 376; Conrad v. Jackson, 89 Fla. 2, 103 So. 113; 17 C.J.S. 359-361, 364, 1216, 1217, 1222; Restatement of the Law of Contracts, Sec. 22. II. There is a presumption that the finding of the Chancellor was correct and said finding should not be reversed unless shown to be manifestly wrong. Aaron v. Citizens Insurance Co. of Mo., 144 Miss. 480, 110 So. 120; Craft v. Standard Accident Insurance Co., 23 Ala. 246, 123 So. 265; Ellis v. Pellegrini, 163 Miss. 385, 141 So. 273; Powell v. Tomlinson, 129 Miss. 658, 92 So. 583.
Judges
  • HALL, P.J.
See more information ...
Smart Summary

SULLIVAN v. KELLER, d.b.a. CITY PLUMBING APPLIANCE COMPANY

1. Appeal — evidence — Chancellor's decision abundantly supported by the evidence.

Where case presented purely a question of fact and Chancellor's decision was abundantly supported by the evidence, it would be affirmed.

Headnote as approved by Hall, P.J.

HALL, P.J.

(Hn 1) This case presents a question of fact purely, which was heard and decided by the Chancellor and who rendered a judgment in favor of the appellee.

His decision is abundantly supported by the evidence and should be and it is hereby affirmed.

Affirmed.

Lee, Kyle, Holmes and McElroy, JJ., concur.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.
Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

Comments

SULLIVAN v. KELLER
(Oct 24, 1960)