M.R.C.P. 54(c) (emphasis added). Furthermore, in Redmond v. Cooper , 151 Miss. 771, 119 So. 592 (1928), this Court affirmed a chancellor's decree and held that: A prayer for general relief is as broad as the equitable powers of the court.
1994), all cases involving whether an award of child support or alimony was proper when not requested by a party in pleadings. The Objectors cite Redmond v. Cooper, 151 Miss. 771, 119 So. 592 (1928), where this Court affirmed a finding by a chancellor that an instrument established certain property boundaries, when the only relief requested was that the instrument in question be cancelled. Where the evidence supported the chancellor's finding, it was affirmed. ¶ 24.
Copeland v. Copeland , 235 So. 3d 91, 95 (¶7) (Miss. 2017) (quoting Redmond v. Cooper , 151 Miss. 771, 119 So. 592, 593 (1928) ). ¶36.
See M.R.C.P. 54(d) ; see alsoCopeland v. Copeland , 235 So. 3d 91 (Miss. 2017) ("If the facts alleged are broad enough to warrant relief, it matters not how narrow the specific prayer may be, if the bill contains a prayer for general relief." (quoting Redmond v. Cooper , 151 Miss. 771, 119 So. 592 (1928) )). We therefore affirm the circuit court's finding regarding liability—i.e., that Rivers and Bell are liable to Delta Plaza for unpaid rent for the three-year period prior to June 9, 2017 (the date Delta Plaza filed the underlying complaint).