Alford v. Crocker

Mississippi Supreme Court

Alford v. Crocker

221 So. 2d 363, 1969 Miss. LEXIS 1495

CourtMississippi Supreme Court

DecidedApril 14, 1969

DocketNo. 45325

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 221 So. 2d 363 (Alford v. Crocker) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Mississippi Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Alford v. Crocker, 221 So. 2d 363, 1969 Miss. LEXIS 1495 (Mich. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

BRADY, Justice:

A careful review of the record and pleadings in this cause reveals that the errors assigned on appeal relate only to factual issues. There is a sharp dispute in the testimony on the questions of whether Clarence Eakes was non compos mentis on February 20, 1967, the date upon which he signed an option, and whether he was mentally incompetent to execute the option on that date because of insanity, habitual drunkenness or intoxication at the time, and whether or not the $12,000 offered was a reasonable price to be paid for the 123 acres of land owned by Clarante Eakes and offered for sale.

There were adequate facts presented upon which the chancellor could base his decision that Clarence Eakes was not non compos mentis on February 20, 1967, and that he was mentally capable of executing the option. We cannot say, under the evidence, that the chancellor was manifestly wrong in his factual determination or that his findings are against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. The decree of the chancery court is therefore affirmed.

Affirmed.

ETHRIDGE, C. J., and RODGERS, PATTERSON and SMITH, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

BRADY, Justice:

A careful review of the record and pleadings in this cause reveals that the errors assigned on appeal relate only to factual issues. There is a sharp dispute in the testimony on the questions of whether Clarence Eakes was non compos mentis on February 20, 1967, the date upon which he signed an option, and whether he was mentally incompetent to execute the option on that date because of insanity, habitual drunkenness or intoxication at the time, and whether or not the $12,000 offered was a reasonable price to be paid for the 123 acres of land owned by Clarante Eakes and offered for sale.

There were adequate facts presented upon which the chancellor could base his decision that Clarence Eakes was not non compos mentis on February 20, 1967, and that he was mentally capable of executing the option. We cannot say, under the evidence, that the chancellor was manifestly wrong in his factual determination or that his findings are against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. The decree of the chancery court is therefore affirmed.

Affirmed.

ETHRIDGE, C. J., and RODGERS, PATTERSON and SMITH, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

221 So. 2d 363, 1969 Miss. LEXIS 1495, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alford-v-crocker-miss-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack