The Daily clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1866-1888, 1876-01-19
E,nrtee vs.. EsedGord's Admir-.
Opinion By SIMRALL, j.

Partee purcha sed the land in controversy
from b. w. Bedford, Jr in March 1867, pay
inc $1,000 IS in cash, and assigning note
Of ". S. BobO for 1881 20 to Bedford. lie
also gave his own notes for the balance OF
the price, one for $4,000 and one for
S2.O13 60, due respectively in one and two
years Bedford gave bond to convey the
title when the final payment " Is made
The administrator of Il. w. bedford filed
a bill in equity claiming there was large
balance due on the note OF w. D booo' al
lpoiru tender of deed by the intestate, and
nravcd for a sale of the land for this bal
auce of the purchase money. Partee made
his answer a cross bill, insisted that all his
own notes had been paid, and that the Bopo
note had been assigned to his vendor as a
part of the cash payment maQe loI Tue lalu'
All the parties TO the BObO note, maker
and endorsers, had been pursued TO lnsoI-
vency. -. ,
whether this note had been transferred III
Dayment of part of the purchase money
or as collateral security therefor; Inc me- M
timOnV substantially was as follows: Inc
whole price agreed on was $4,000; the cash
Maid was 81 05j 65; this, added to the BobO
note and the two notes of Partee mace up
the whole amount OF S9,6UO. Inc titlt poHu
was lost, but the parol evidence OF us con
/ tents showed that in 1t about @4,OOo III cas-
/ was acknowledged to have been palu'
] NothiDg was said in the bond ABOUT tne
/ RObo note. Partee at the time OF the trace
/ positively refused 10 indorse the booo hoCo'
and was about to break oil the Craue say IlS
! he was paving too much tor the lanu' Deu-
/ tord called him back saying he Wouiu ac-
cent the note if Partee would put the III
/ dorsement of Vernon Il Partee on the hOIe'
! This was done and the note accepted. ne
only witness testitying on this point sa!u
| that the BobO note and the Sl,ooo % III
money were given as the cash payment
I Where the note of party is taken FOR al
antecedent debt. it is presumed TO DC con
I;tional nayment and not absolute satistac'
tion. i'm the absence OF an express agfeenieiL
or cnecial facts which would give rise To th'
nresum ption of absolute payment.
I'll However, where the note OF a uhH'
Derson is taken for goods SOFA III the aosen :
II an agreement of the parties, or OF specla
Cints Showing a different presumption, 1
r"onld he held that the note was taken II
pa I'll In tbe case at bar, the evidence show
that the intention of the partles 10 the con
tract was that the note OF booo, ~ 10 -
: thp vendee. was taken by the Vehuor IN par
,vmant of the purchase money, ana not
: hdn16itional nayment or as collateral Secu
i ritv, And that the lien on the land wa
. merely security for the notes given oy III
vendee which have been pau.
: IN In reversing the decree of the Char
oaIlor on a conclusion or question OF FAC
tha Conrt explained and construed DaV
!, " Richardson AS Miss.l, and Apple
5 C ~, AS Id, and stated the rule thus
e - Wbiie the conclusion of Chancellor on
Re question of fact will not be treated as ha,
the same weight the n Terdle5 OF that n
, dacrpe is right in both, as TO its CONCLUSION
al of low and fact, and the conclusion OF q
L Chancellor on the facts will not be dlsturo e
unless il is against the preponderance OF {
Gu evidence" or not supported by sulhcle
competent evidence decree reverse" Z"
cquse remanded