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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.