In 1934, we addressed circumstantial evidence and toxic contamination in another case involving the Leaf River and a plant which produced masonite boards and released effluent into the river. Masonite Corp. v. Hill, 170 Miss. 158, 154 So. 295 (1934). In that case, we observed:
(216 Miss. at 454, 62 So.2d at 570). In Masonite Corporation v. Hill, 170 Miss. 158, 154 So. 295 (1934) this Court held that an inference may be based upon another inference, but where the ultimate inference has become only a strong possibility, such proof is insufficient to support a judgment. This case also held that, in allowing inference upon inference, the Court should do so no further than required in the interest of justice by the reasonable necessities of the case.
The burden rested upon appellee to prove her case by a clear preponderance of the evidence, and if the evidence fails in this respect leaving the case to speculation and conjecture, the case fails. Masonite Corporation v. Hill, 170 Miss. 158, 154 So. 295. As to proposition that appellant pumped water from Jones Bayou into the water mains of the City of Cleveland the evidence is not sufficient to prove this proposition.
Thus, the Goodwin court held that for the standard of proof required in negligent-food-poisoning cases, "inference upon inference" will not be permitted when the facts sought to be established are "capable of more satisfactory proof by direct, or positive or demonstrative, evidence." Id. at 377, 42 So.2d at 401–02 (quoting Masonite Corp. v. Hill, 170 Miss. 158, 167, 154 So. 295, 298–99 (1934) ).¶ 14. The Goodwin court upheld the directed verdict in favor of the defendant restaurant.
IV. The instructions of the Court fail to furnish any guidelines for the jury to follow in assessing damages for hauling water. Collation of authorities: Bryan Bros. Packing Co. v. Grubbs, 249 Miss. 6, 168 So.2d 289; General Geophysical Co. v. Brown, 205 Miss. 189, 38 So.2d 703; Gore v. Patrick, 246 Miss. 715, 150 So.2d 169; Humble Oil Refining Co. v. Pittman, 210 Miss. 314, 49 So.2d 408; Kramer Service v. Wilkins, 184 Miss. 438, 186 So. 625; Magnolia Petroleum Co. v. McCollum, 210 Miss. 166, 51 So.2d 217; Magnolia Petroleum Co. v. Williams, 222 Miss. 538, 76 So.2d 365; Masonite Corp. v. Hill, 170 Miss. 158, 154 So. 295; National Fire Insurance Co. of Hartford v. Slayden, 227 Miss. 285, 85 So.2d 916; Parsons v. Lambert, 209 Miss. 649, 48 So.2d 143. Louie F. Ruffin, Richton; Thomas J. Riley, Hattiesburg, for appellee.
I. The appellees, Reba Copling Mills and John B. Mills, had the burden of proving forgery as alleged in their bill of complaint, and in their answers and cross-bill, and they wholly failed to meet such burden of proof. Anderson, Clayton Co. v. Rayborn (Miss.), 192 So. 28; Burnside v. Gulf Refining Co., 166 Miss. 460, 148 So. 219; Equitable Life Assurance Society of United States v. Mitchell, 201 Miss. 696, 29 So.2d 88; Kramer Service v. Wilkins, 184 Miss. 483, 186 So. 625; Illinois Central R. Co. v. Cathy, 70 Miss. 332, 12 So. 253; Masonite Corp. v. Dennis, 170 Miss. 158, 186 So. 613; Mutual Benefit Health Accident Assn. v. Johnson (Miss.), 186 So. 297; New Orleans N.E.R. Co. v. Holsomback, 16 Miss. 493, 151 So. 720; Owen v. Illinois Central R. Co., 77 Miss. 142, 24 So. 899; Reily v. Crymes, 176 Miss. 133, 168 So. 267; Williams v. Lumpkin, 169 Miss. 146, 152 So. 842; Griffith's Mississippi Chancery Practice (2d ed.), Secs. 588, 599 pp. 620, 622. II. The Chancellor's finding of facts, in so far as it was adverse to the appellants, was not supported by any evidence and was, and is, manifestly wrong.
38 Am. Jur. 672, 673, Secs. 27, 28; 45 C.J. 661, Sec. 31; Railroad Co. v. Cathey, 70 Miss. 332; Berryhill v. Nichols, 171 Miss. 769, 158 So. 470; Hamel v. Southern Ry. Co., 113 Miss. 344, 358, 74 So. 276; Jabron v. State, 159 So. 406; Williams v. Lumpkin, 169 Miss. 146, 152, 152 So. 842, 844. 2. Courts in civil cases act on probabilities and never on possibilities or conjecture. Columbus Greenville R.R. Co. v. Coleman, 172 Miss. 514, 160 So. 277; New Orleans N.E.R. Co. v. Holsomback, 168 Miss. 493, 495, 151 So. 720; Berryhill v. Nichols, 171 Miss. 769, 158 So. 470, 471; Masonite Corp. v. Hill, (Miss.), 154 So. 295, 95 A.L.R. 157; Jabron v. State, (Miss.), 159 So. 406; Equitable Life Ins. Co. v. Mitchell, 201 Miss. 696, 29 So.2d 88; Yazoo M.V.R. Co. v. Lamensdorf, 180 Miss. 426, 177 So. 50; Williams v. Lumpkin, 169 Miss. 146, 153, 152 So. 842; Kramer Service, Inc. v. Wilkins, 184 Miss. 483, 186 So. 625; Railroad v. Cathey, 70 Miss. 332, 337, 12 So. 253; Hercules Powder Co. v. Calcoke, 161 Miss. 860, 138 So. 583; Yazoo M.V.R. Co. v. Green, 167 Miss. 137, 147 So. 333; Owen v. Railroad Co., 77 Miss. 142, 146, 24 So. 899. 3. The judgment in this case rests upon too many inferences.
An inference may be based upon another inference but where the ultimate inference has become only a more or less strong possibility, the proof is insufficient to support the judgment. Masonite Corporation v. Hill, 170 Miss. 158, 154 So. 295. Where different parties discharged sewerage and filth into a stream which intermingled and caused an actionable nuisance, they are not jointly liable for damages where there is no common design or concert of action, but each is liable only for his proportion of the damages.
I. Mr. Martin failed to meet the burden of proving that any seismograph charge fired by Western was the proximate cause of the damage alleged to have been sustained. Berryhill v. Nichols, 171 Miss. 769, 158 So. 470; General Geophysical Co. v. Brown, 205 Miss. 189, 38 So.2d 703; Humble Oil Refining Co. v. Pittman, 210 Miss. 314, 49 So.2d 408; Kramer Service Co. v. Wilkins, 184 Miss. 483, 186 So. 625; Magnolia Petroleum Co. v. McCollum, 211 Miss. 166, 51 So.2d 217; Magnolia Petroleum Co. v. Williams, 222 Miss. 538, 76 So.2d 365; Masonite Corp. v. Hill, 170 Miss. 158, 154 So. 295; Mutual Benefit Health Accident Assn. v. Johnson (Miss.), 186 So. 297; Teche Lines v. Bounds, 182 Miss. 638, 179 So. 747. II. The damages awarded are without support in the record, and are so excessive as to evince bias, passion and prejudice by the jury.
Berryhill v. Nichols, 171 Miss. 769, 158 So. 470; Carroll v. Missouri Power Light Co. (Mo.), 96 S.W.2d 1074; Citizens Bank v. Callicott, 178 Miss. 747, 174 So. 78; Dreher v. Order of United Commercial Travelers of America (Wis.), 180 N.W. 815; Goodwin v. Misticos, 207 Miss. 361, 42 So.2d 397; Harris v. Pounds, 185 Miss. 688, 187 So. 891; Hinman v. Sabin, 147 Miss. 509, 112 So. 871; Kelsey v. Armour Co. (Kan.), 241 P. 453; Mageau v. Great Northern R. Co. (Minn.), 119 N.W. 200; Masonite Corp. v. Hills, 170 Miss. 158, 154 So. 295; Masonite Corp. v. Dennis, 175 Miss. 855, 168 So. 613; Mutual Benefit Health Accident Assn. v. Johnson (Miss.), 186 So. 297; Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Dause (Ky.), 76 S.W.2d 233; Prudential Ins. Co. v. Howard (Ky.), 80 S.W.2d 21; Willis v. Western Hospital Assn. (Idaho), 182 P.2d 950; 20 Am. Jur., Secs. 164, 165 pp. 168, 169; 32 C.J.S. 400. II. The opinion evidence of the doctors should not have been admitted since the facts proven by the plaintiff omitted many essential elements of medical proof, and opinions based on such facts were highly speculative and could have no probative value.