NASH v. STANLEY

Blair Anderson and Claude F. Clayton, all of Tupelo, for appellant. A well established principle of law is that a deed is not delivered until the grantor has either placed it actually beyond his control or has indicated an intention of so treating. Walls v. Walls, 30 Miss. 91; Weisinger v. Cock, 67 Miss. 511; 1 Devlin on Deeds, p. 227; 18 C.J. 200; Hall v. Barnett, 71 Miss. 37; 8 R.C.L. 978. The lower court decided this case contrary to the law and contrary to the weight of the evidence. Where a deed has been duly executed and acknowledged and is subsequently found in the possession of the grantor a presumption arising that it was never delivered and the burden of proof rests upon the party claiming under the deed. Cassidy v. Holland (S.D.), 130 N.W. 771. J.W.P. Boggan, of Tupelo, for appellee. The proof in this case appears to clearly show by a preponderance of the evidence that B.E. Bourland, the father of appellee, executed and delivered to appellee in 1907 a deed to the lands involved in this law suit. And if I am correct in this conclusion, this court will not disturb the findings of fact as shown by the opinion of the Chancellor. In reviewing findings on conflicting evidence, testimony supporting the findings must be considered as true. Powell v. Tomlinson, 92 So. 583, 129 Miss. 658; Bells v. Walker, 83 So. 411, 121 Miss. 98. All presumptions are in favor of the judgment. Bates v. Strickland, 103 So. 432, 139 Miss. 636.