Young v. Westphalen & Co.

72 So. 193, 111 Miss. 765
Mississippi Supreme Court·Decided March 15, 1916·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Smith, C. J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

While a presumption that a letter, properly addressed, stamped, and mailed, reached the addressee ip not conclusive, but may be rebutted by evidence showing that the letter in fact was not received, whether the rebutting evidence is sufficient to overcome the presumption is a question for the jury. See cases cited in notes to Feder Silberberg Co. v. McNeil, 49 L. R. A. (N. S.) 468, and Merchants’ Exchange Company v. Sanders, 4 Ann. Cas. 955. It follows, therefore, that in the case at bar it was for the jury to say whether a letter addressed to appellees, notifying them of the dissolution of the partnership of J. P. Leake & Co., was mailed, and, if mailed, whether it was received.

Reversed and remanded.

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

Young v. Westphalen & Co., 72 So. 193, 111 Miss. 765 (Mich. 1916).

72 So. 193 (Young v. Westphalen & Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Bank of Crystal Springs v. First Nat. Bank
427 So. 2d 968 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1983)
Employers Mutual Casualty Co. v. Nosser
164 So. 2d 426 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1964)
McCreary v. Stevens
126 So. 4 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1930)