1. Appeal — Chancellor's conclusions on fact issue — review.
If Chancellor had substantial evidence to support conclusion reached by him on question of fact, Supreme Court would not be justified in reversing him on that finding.
2. Appeal — debtor and creditor relationship — Chancellor's finding — sustained.
Evidence sustained Chancellor's finding that relation between parties complainant and defendants was that of debtor and creditor rather than that of coadventurers, and warranted personal decrees against defendants based on that conclusion.
3. Sales — defective feed — evidence — insufficient to establish liability.
Where defendants by cross-bill sought damages claimed from defective feed furnished by complainant to defendants resulting in the death of chickens, evidence that feed sold was injurious to and caused death of chickens was too vague, indefinite and uncertain to establish liability, and consequently decree denying recovery would be affirmed.
Headnotes as approved by Roberds, P.J.
Roberds, P.J.
(Hn 1) The rights and liabilities of the parties involved in this appeal depend mainly upon whether the relation between John A. Adams and Elouise B. Adams, appellants, and McComb Milling Company, Inc., appellee, was that of debtor and creditor or that of coadventurers during the period of their business dealings. The chancellor found and adjudicated that relation to be that of debtor and creditor and rendered personal decrees against appellants based upon that conclusion. If he had substantial evidence to support that conclusion we are not justified in reversing him on that finding. This is a long record. (Hn 2) We have carefully reviewed and considered it. Without detailing the testimony, pro and con, on this question, we find that the chancellor not only had substantial testimony to support his conclusions and findings but that the great weight of the testimony disclosed by the record justifies such findings and conclusions. (Hn 3) Appellants were engaged in the business of raising and marketing small chickens. By cross-bill they sought a personal decree against the appellee for damage caused them, as claimed, from defective feed furnished by appellee to appellants for chicken feed, resulting in the death of many chickens. The chancellor denied the cross-bill. He correctly did that. The proof that the feed sold by appellee to appellants, which they fed to their chickens, was injurious to, and caused the death of, the chickens is entirely too vague, indefinite and uncertain to establish liability against appellee on those grounds.
Affirmed.
Hall, Lee, Kyle and Holmes, JJ., concur.