Toth v. Mississippi Farms Co.

78 So. 513, 117 Miss. 522

Opinion

Ethridge, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

sviíaoÍK?'í(j ai bapí JjtMjííísJ ar ■'frtMKW 9(Ü áerií aworfe í):<3aáxles'fr[P;írfb/qaff)r.elljaíít,.t:fiiedí>a/;bj.’^//íltijithj6>;p.hapa#ít^/ c©tedí^ío(Mo.tgNisotírft!y‘'rAgakLstíítlielJíisis.isfei#piíF»rfesSí Cx»pHHy,?’tG5 ®meelnadctrhdfefrÁJáGl® -ífaq ^rta^í-ítónáá'i bxfflgMtfí®» fkéirMi'ksi’Séippi gnoundi bf frnuáhaffitdi: ihisreiproseKtdtioh*! áad'tte'/f'Mo^ieM c«pi:aiiiu3mcdieysíípaird)}dEC'saidí'.co®ti1a6feI íDlbatí8lleiufifen$j ckaxgm’$nfe%BdefveM.§ donie.d¡»unfl¡í|h,e»3/FÍ6 ?a #bÉ®Qfoá#í théí testi-n&ény feéiwaén) -bles ccomplUinnsifTiancbaieíe^$¡a:d&¡. tbkifiisúxijec.tín^ilá'tóffi^ii'Vd^b ¡>i sida nodded fu •roIíe/>íu«rb

í^iKI5apfiaEsoFÍmmsit|íeuí0oroplai)3.a^i?§.(J@&id9rtííét-foi-me'xly lisped ÉdíPibésbiirgkll’ía^'.tái'iflufeseii^édoP^íiliágia lMearáti®teglroanq{|he ^office,';©ff¡;?tB© rMfesi'S^ppli Goilpa-nWin? Piiddbxixgpajfcs'wliicM.lthe^laftiidi jba#©stiíi&tf ■w«re}d@áéribdd>AHíglowmg-;tíjíoa@y\‘aHd'^&*i®a:S)iíBp^e^0»ti8f-í« tions made as to their productivity, healthf ulnes^-, ;gñd:« various^ Pther advantages, and that, as a result of reading such literature, he went to Wiggins, Miss., and out to the lands in question, and bought twenty acres of the land at twenty-five-dol-la-xs~an--acre, to be paid for in terms of one hundred dollars cash, and one hundred pe& „r__!fffé*‘' healthfulness and^^üdtftffi^ft/'' cfFw£ráiá land by the representations made to him,.. Anymg the representations relied upon is one that, if the party was dis-satisfie¿,my5Íthjp30^gü.si.ppth;sjr^^JfepP<Wi;]aS(^;orAf cxompíáy .wBuld-ííjr&fundígtheaEQíiqnQy, napdafláiíanyoipuxty. i«ád'é°is dh'-’fhrmtesaid^'MndsfíaiidoIhould -fj sfflF $favBpS~G!rxSWOiln& llalli 0OÍU1

,ioff^g0irnp¡p{q4ltaípd9tefe¡^WqS§#S3lí»^ijtMritjans-anstóbniaiJdrifeitontdonsinsSOimbenct'tEmsy laaintingfeaiípicture of suffering', sickness, and starvatio.n for the colony of which complainant was a member. The defendant not only contradicts the evidence of plaintiff, but proves by its witnesses wonderful results from tilling the soil of the kind sold to the complainant, and by its witnesses shows that the country is healthful, land is productive with proper tilling, and that the complainant refused and neglected to make any reasonable effort to cultivate the land, and only cultivated about one acre for one year, which work was done by his family, and that he himself worked at other work. A number of witnesses testified that the land would produce what it was represented to produce, and sustained the defendant’s view of the “case. Upon this conflict in the evidence the chancellor is better able to determine the truth, and to judge of the credibility of witnesses, than we are. This seems to be a suit brought to test the legal right to rescind these series of sales, there appearing to have been others, and for this reason we have written this opinion; otherwise, we would have affirmed without an opinion.

Affirmed.