Smith v. Chicago Portrait Co.

82 So. 145, 120 Miss. 277
CourtMississippi Supreme Court
DecidedMarch 15, 1919
DocketNo. 20776
StatusPublished

This text of 82 So. 145 (Smith v. Chicago Portrait Co.) 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
Smith v. Chicago Portrait Co., 82 So. 145, 120 Miss. 277 (Mich. 1919).

Opinion

Smith, C. J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The appellee is a corporation engaged in the business of enlarging photographs, selling of picture frames, etc. Some time since it employed John W. Maddox as one of its district managers, who executed to it a bond, with the appellants as sureties thereon, to insure the faithful performance of his duties as district manager and the payment to appellee of any money which might come into his possession by virtue of his employment. [278]*278On the termination of the relations between the ap-pellee and Maddox, it instituted this suit in the court below to recover from the appellants several hundred dollars alleged to be due it by Maddox and secured by the bond aforesaid. The only evidence introduced by the appellee of Maddox’s alleged shortage was an itemized statement of his account with it, one of its employees, under whose supervision its books of accounts were kept, having testified that the account had been correctly transcribed from the books, and that the books had been correctly kept.

The appellant’s objection to the introduction of this statement of Maddox’s account should have been sustained. Moody v. Roberts & Co., 41 Miss. 74; Pipes v. Norton, 47 Miss 61. And, because it was not, the judgment of the court below must be and is hereby reversed and the cause remanded. We decide no other question claimed by the appellants to be presented by this record.

Reversed and remanded.

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

Related

Moody v. J. M. Roberts & Co.
41 Miss. 74 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1866)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
82 So. 145, 120 Miss. 277, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-chicago-portrait-co-miss-1919.