SMITH v. BATESVILLE SECURITY BANK

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

No. 39304.

Attorney(S)

D.R. Johnson, Batesville; James Stone Sons, Oxford, for appellant. I. The decree of the lower court was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. A. The lower court erred in holding that appellant breached the contract involved in this suit and in holding that appellee did not do so. B. The lower court erred in holding that the proceeds of the personal rent cotton of appellant were not deposited in appellee bank as trust funds, and in holding that such proceeds were not accepted by appellee bank as trust funds. Collation of authorities: Anderson v. Cumberland Tel. Tel. Co., 86 Miss. 341, 38 So. 786; Armour-Cudahy Packing Co. v. First Natl. Bank of Greenville, Miss., 69 Miss. 700, 11 So. 28; Brown v. State, 200 Miss. 881, 27 So.2d 838; Gillis v. Smith, 114 Miss. 665, 75 So. 451; Hart v. Moore, 171 Miss. 838, 158 So. 490; Holmes v. Holmes, 154 Miss. 713, 123 So. 865; McCarty v. Love, Supt. of Banks, 145 Miss. 330, 110 So. 795; Mitchell v. Bank of Indianola, 98 Miss. 658, 54 So. 87; Robinson v. Haydel, 177 Miss. 233, 177 So. 7; Sawyers v. Conner, 114 Miss. 363, 75 So. 131, Ann. Cas. 1918B, 388, L.R.A. 1918A, 61; Smith v. Cook, 213 Miss. 876, 58 So.2d 27; Southern Bell Tel. Tel. Co. v. Quick, 167 Miss. 438, 149 So. 107; State v. Collins, 350 Mo. 291, 165 S.W.2d 647; Teague v. Brown, 199 Miss. 262, 24 So.2d 726; White v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. (Mo. App.), 218 S.W.2d 795. II. The lower court erred in finding that appellant was not entitled to actual damages. J.M. James Co. v. Continental Natl. Bank, 105 Tenn. 1, 58 S.W. 261, 51 L.R.A. 255; McFall v. First Natl. Bank of Forrest City, 138 Ark. 370, 211 S.W. 919, 4 A.L.R. 940; Weaver v. Grenada Bank, 180 Miss. 876, 178 So. 105, 179 So. 564. III. The lower court erred in finding that appellant was not entitled to punitive damages. Davis v. Standard Natl. Bank, 63 N Y Supp. 764, 50 App. Div. 210; Lajam v. Abraham Sahdala Son Corp., 171 N.Y. Supp. 611, 184 App. Div. 490. McClure McClure, Sardis; Robert T. Riser, Batesville, for appellee. I. The Chancellor was fully justified in finding and holding that the appellant breached its contract with the appellee, that appellee was not at fault in not cashing appellant's check to Bank of Batesville in the amount of $1,496.64 on November 8, 1952, especially after appellee discovered that appellant had disposed of the first one hundred bale hedge contract at a profit to himself of $560, appropriated the same, refused to deposit the profit of said hedge contract in his cotton account, and refused to put up additional margins with appellee. At said time, the value of the cotton held by appellee as security for said overdraft was equal thereto. In addition, the contract granted appellee discredition in the matter. From this evidence, the Chancellor was warranted in finding that appellant was at fault and not appellee bank. The proof clearly shows that the appellee bank was entitled to a judgment against appellant for the loss appellee sustained on advancements made to appellant with which he conducted his cotton business. II. The rule is well established in Mississippi that the findings of the Chancellor on issues of fact will not be disturbed unless manifestly wrong or against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. Hickey v. Anderson, 215 Miss. 52, 60 So. 513; Jefferson v. Walker, 193 Miss. 705, 24 So.2d 343; McKeithen v. Bush, 201 Miss. 664, 29 So.2d 310; Muse v. Alexander (Miss.), 56 So.2d 804. III. The weight of the testimony of the witnesses was for the Chancellor. Sharp v. Learned, 202 Miss. 393, 32 So.2d 141.

Judges

HALL, J.

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Please sign up to generate summary.

SMITH v. BATESVILLE SECURITY BANK.

1. Appeal — evidence — disputed question of fact — not against great weight of.

Where the evidence presented a disputed question of fact and was sufficient to support a decree for either complainant or defendant, and decision of Chancery Court was not manifestly wrong or against the great weight of evidence, judgment was affirmed.

Headnote as approved by Hall, J.

HALL, J.

This case presents a disputed question of fact which was resolved by the chancellor in favor of appellee. There was evidence sufficient to support a decree for either party. (Hn 1) We have carefully considered the whole record and we are unable to say that the decision of the lower court was manifestly wrong or against the great weight of the evidence. Therefore, under our decisions, the judgment of the lower court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

McGehee, C.J., and Kyle, Holmes and Gillespie, JJ., concur.

SMITH v. BATESVILLE SECURITY BANK.

Comments