The weekly clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1863-1882, 1876-01-19

Opinion By SIMRALL, j.

Partee purchased the land in controversy
from b. w. Bedford, Jr in March 1862 pay
ing Sl,0aa IS in cash. and assigning a note
Of w. ). BobO for 1881 20 to Bedford. He
| also gave his own notes for the balance OF
the price, one for $50, 200 and one for
$2,0l3 81, due respectively in one and two
years. Bedford gave bond ia convey the
title when the final payment was made.
Tie administration of Il. w. Bedford filed
! q bill in equity claiming there was large
balance due on the note of w. 5. Bobo, al
| legirg tender of a deed by the intestate, and
! prayed for a sale of the land for this bal
ance of the purchase money. Parsee made
his answer a crOssbtIl, insisted that all his
! own Gotps had been paid, and that the Bobo
/ note had been assigned to his vendar as a
! part of the cash payment made for the land.
| All the parties tn the hobo note, maker
and endarGers, had been pursued to insol-
| venGy,
Tie single inquiry in this case was
payment of part OF the purchase money,
or "a collateral security therefor. The tes-
timony substantially was as follows The
whole price agreed On was 50 soc. tie cash
| paid was $l,05j 65; this, AIDE J to the BobO
note and tie tWo nates of Fartee made up
I the whole amount of $4,000. The title bond
was lost, but the parol evidence of its con-
tents showed that in it about $4,000 in cash
was acknowledged to have been paid.
Nothing was said in the bond about sne
positively refused v indOrse the BDbo note.
and was about TO break Oft the trade saving
| he was paying too mach for the land. Bed
Iord called him back saying he would ac-
ceDt the note il Partee would put the in
dorSement Of Vernon Il Partee on ts,c note.
This was done and the note accepted The
| only witness tpstiillng 90 this point said
that the BobC pote aud the SI.a55 s. in
| money we're given as the cash plyment.
]. Where The noEe Of party is taken for an
autecedeut debt. il il presumed 10 be con-
diIinual payment and not absolute satisfac.
ton, in the absence OF an express agreement
or special facts which would give rise to the
presumption of absolute payment.
ii. However, where the note Ola ;h.rd
person is taken for goods sofa il the absence
of an agreement Of the parties, or of special
facts showing a different presumption. il
would he held that the note was taken in
PAYMENT.
III. In the case at bar, tue evidence shows
that the intention Of the parties ~ the con-
tract was that the note Of Bobo, indorsad by
the vendee, was taken by the vendor In part
paYm ant of the purchase money, and not as
conditional payment or as collateral secu-
Tity. And that the lien on the land was
merely security for the notes given by the
vendee. which have been paid
IN. In reversing the decree cg the Chan
cellor on conclusion of question of fact.
the Court explained and construed Davis
VS., ssiekards6n (45 MISSY, and Apple vs.,
Gauong (4S Id.). and stated the rule thus
While the conclusion of Chapcelbor on a
| question of fact will aQk ee treated as hav-
ing the sam4 weight as the verdict of jury.
| the appellate cofrt will presume that the
decree Il right in both, as 10 Its conclusions
of law and fact, and the conclusion of the
| Chancellor on the facts will not be disturb ed
| pAleSs Il Is against the preponderance of the
evidence" or not supported by sufficient
competent evidence. Decree reversed CD
| cause TemdHded.