Stroud et al. v. Loper

46 Citing cases

  1. Matthews v. Thompson

    231 Miss. 258 (Miss. 1957)   Cited 55 times
    In Matthews v. Thompson, 231 Miss. 258, 95 So.2d 438 (1957), both Fleming and Keith v. Y. M.V. Railroad Co., 168 Miss. 519, 151 So. 916 (1934), were discussed, and it was noted that in them the drivers were blinded by lights or were unable to see on account of smoke.

    The decrees of the Chancellor should be affirmed. Bullock v. Green, 224 Miss. 278, 80 So.2d 37; Evans v. City of Jackson, 202 Miss. 9, 28 So.2d 249; Hays v. Lyon, 192 Miss. 585, 7 So.2d 523; Koenig v. Calcote, 199 Miss. 435, 25 So.2d 763; Langston v. Farmer, 176 Miss. 820, 170 So. 233; Lindeman's Estate v. Herbert, 188 Miss. 842, 193 So. 790; Smith v. Fanning (Miss.), 25 So.2d 481; Stroud v. Loper, 190 Miss. 168, 198 So. 46; Thames v. Thames, 222 Miss. 617, 76 So.2d 707. II.

  2. Shoemake v. Davis

    216 So. 2d 420 (Miss. 1968)   Cited 17 times

    There is, however, ample evidence to support the finding of the chancellor, and the chancellor's finding of fact will not be disturbed in accordance with the well established rule as shown in Ellis v. Ellis, 248 Miss. 483, 160 So.2d 904 (1964); James v. Federal Royalty Co., 44 So.2d 542 (Miss. 1950); and Stroud v. Loper, 190 Miss. 168, 198 So. 46 (1940). The two errors assigned by the appellant are that the Chancery Court of Pearl River County erred in sustaining the petitions for adoption. There was a separate petition for the adoption of each child but the hearings on both petitions were heard jointly and separate decrees were entered. The second error is that the decrees of adoption are contrary to the law and the evidence.

  3. State v. Sims

    176 So. 2d 261 (Miss. 1965)   Cited 2 times

    McFarland McFarland, Bay Springs; Barnett, Montgomery, McClintock Cunningham, Jackson, for appellees. I. Answer to proposition I. Harris v. Armstrong, 232 Miss. 192, 98 So.2d 463; Stroud v. Loper, 190 Miss. 168, 198 So. 46; Towles v. Towles, 243 Miss. 59, 137 So.2d 182. II. Answer to proposition II. Strider v. Calvert Fire Insurance Co., 226 Miss. 773, 85 So.2d 183.

  4. McCrory Corp. v. Istre

    173 So. 2d 640 (Miss. 1965)   Cited 7 times
    In McCrory Corp. v. Istre, 252 Miss. 679, 173 So.2d 640 (1965), we held that when a communication goes further than the interests or duties of the privilege holder require, the publisher will not be protected despite the fact "that a duty, a common interest, or a confidential relation existed to a limited degree..., even though he acted in good faith."

    IV. Rebuttal to appellants' brief. Evans v. City of Jackson, 201 Miss. 14, 28 So.2d 249; Gerard v. Gill, 195 Miss. 726, 15 So.2d 478, 916; Henry v. Gulf, M. O.R. Co., 202 Miss. 669, 32 So.2d 199; McLean v. Merriman, 42 S.D. 394, 175 N.W. 878; Sharp v. Learned, 202 Miss. 393, 32 So.2d 141; Stroud v. Loper, 190 Miss. 168, 198 So. 46. JONES, J.

  5. Bolden v. Gatewood

    250 Miss. 93 (Miss. 1964)   Cited 10 times

    VII. Suggestion of damages on direct appeal. Howard v. Howard, 243 Miss. 68, 137 So.2d 191; Irvine v. Irvine, 241 Miss. 816, 133 So.2d 14; Langston v. Farmer, 176 Miss. 820, 170 So. 233; Smith v. Van Norman, 234 Miss. 526, 106 So.2d 897; Stroud v. Loper, 190 Miss. 168, 198 So. 46; Sec. 1971, Code 1942. VIII. The Chancellor was in error when he did not allow cross-appellant, Mrs. Gatewood, to recover interest from October 1956, to date of judgment.

  6. Lee v. Indian Creek Drainage District

    148 So. 2d 663 (Miss. 1963)   Cited 16 times

    The judgment of the trial court on disputed facts will not be disturbed on appeal unless clearly erroneous or against the weight of the evidence. Fleming v. Fleming, 213 Miss. 74, 56 So.2d 35; Sullivan v. Keller, d.b.a. City Plumbing Appliance Co., 239 Miss. 458, 123 So.2d 695; Osborn v. Thomas, et ux., 221 Miss. 393, 74 So.2d 757; Sharp, et al. v. Learned, 202 Miss. 393, 32 So.2d 141; Stroud v. Loper, 190 Miss. 168, 198 So. 46. We do not find manifest error in the trial and decree of the chancery court, and, for that reason, this case is affirmed.

  7. Campbell Soup Co. v. Dusek

    135 So. 2d 414 (Miss. 1961)

    I. The decree of the Chancellor should be affirmed. Bullock v. Green, 224 Miss. 278, 80 So.2d 37; Donohoe v. Aultman, 240 Miss. 304, 127 So.2d 395; Evans v. City of Jackson, 201 Miss. 14, 28 So.2d 249; Hays v. Lyon, 192 Miss. 858, 7 So.2d 523; Koenig v. Calcote, 199 Miss. 435, 25 So.2d 763; Langston v. Farmer, 176 Miss. 820, 170 So. 233; Meek v. Humphreys County, 133 Miss. 386, 97 So. 674; Schillereff v. Adamany, 240 Miss. 275, 127 So.2d 392; Smith v. Fanning (Miss.), 25 So.2d 481; Stroud v. Loper, 190 Miss. 168, 198 So. 46; Thames v. Thames, 222 Miss. 617, 76 So.2d 707. II. The Chancellor was not manifestly wrong in awarding $1,000.

  8. Dollar Department Stores of Mississippi, Inc. v. Laub

    238 Miss. 708 (Miss. 1960)   Cited 6 times

    This Court will not reverse the Chancellor unless his decision is manifestly erroneous. Stovall v. Stovall, 218 Miss. 67 So.2d 391; Stroud v. Loper, 190 Miss. 168, 198 So. 46. LEE, J.

  9. Blount, et al. v. Blount

    231 Miss. 398 (Miss. 1957)   Cited 26 times
    Holding that " wife, in respect of her right to maintenance or alimony, is within the protection of statutes or the rule avoiding conveyances or transfers in fraud of creditors . . ."

    This case is appealed on the theory that the Chancellor erred in his finding of fact, and the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that unless the Chancellor is manifestly wrong in his findings of fact, the decree of the Lower Court will not be reversed. Bullock v. Green, 224 Miss. 278, 80 So.2d 37; Early v. United States F. G. Co., 181 Miss. 162, 176 So. 720; Huckaby v. Jenkins, 153 Miss. 359, 121 So. 130; Pierce v. Ford, 199 Miss. 168, 24 So.2d 342; Reed v. Lavecchia, 187 Miss. 413, 193 So. 439; Stovall v. Stovall, 218 Miss. 364, 67 So.2d 391; Stroud v. Loper, 190 Miss. 168, 198 So. 46; Thames v. Thames, 222 Miss. 617, 76 So.2d 707. III.

  10. Cole, et al. v. Enterprise Funeral Home

    89 So. 2d 699 (Miss. 1956)   Cited 1 times

    II. The Court committed no error in its interpretation of what was a reasonable expenditure for funeral expense. Ascher v. Moyse, 101 Miss. 56, 57 So. 299; Bounds v. Bround, 201 Miss. 564, 59 So.2d 657; Donald v. McWhorter, 44 Miss. 124, 129; Evans v. Jackson, 201 Miss. 14, 28 So.2d 249; Gerald v. Gill, 195 Miss. 726, 15 So.2d pp. 478, 916; Henry v. G.M. O. Ry. Co., 202 Miss. 669, 32 So.2d 199; Huckaby v. Jenkins, 153 Miss. 359, 121 So. 130; Lee v. Memphis Publishing Co., 203 Miss. 391, 35 So.2d 443; Malvezzi v. Gully, 189 Miss. 20, 193 So. 42; Pierce v. Ford, 199 Miss. 168, 24 So.2d 342; Powell v. Tomlinson, 129 Miss. 659, 92 So. 583; Ridgeway v. Jones, 125 Miss. 22, 87 So. 461; Rosenbaum v. Bohannon, 204 Miss. 936 So.2d 198; Yazoo M.V. Ry. Co. v. Adams, 81 Miss. 105-109, 32 So. 937; Sharp v. Learned, 202 Miss. 393, 32 So.2d 141; Smith v. Lowry, 185 Miss. 600, 188 So. 549; Straud v. Loper, 109 Miss. 168, 198 So. 46; Teague v. Brown, 199 Miss. 262, 24 So.2d 726. III. The Court did not err in overruling the motion of contestant to grant a decree disallowing the claim of Enterprise Funeral Home for the burial expenses of Joe Cole. Payton v. Jones (La.), 38 So.2d 631; Ridgeway v. Jones, supra; Wooley v. Wooley, 194 Miss. 751, 12 So.2d 539.