Opinion ID: 1141909
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: did the chancellor err in giving weight to cox v. kinnebrew, 465 so.2d 344?

Text: The Coxes, immediate grantees of the Kinnebrews, had sued the Kinnebrews and an attorney for defrauding them regarding the state of the title. The lower court in that case apparently concluded that there could be no fraud because the deed from McII to Kinnebrews was ambiguous. This Court affirmed per curiam. Cox, et ux. v. Kinnebrew, et al., 465 So.2d 344 (Miss. 1985). The McII heirs and assigns now claim that the trial court in the instant case erred in relying on that affirmance, since different parties are involved in the instant dispute. The argument fails because the trial court simply noted the other decision and its affirmance. There is absolutely no indication that the trial court gave weight to that decision in determining whether there was an ambiguity. The record shows just the opposite, i.e., that the Chancellor very painstakingly examined the exception word by word and then reached the conclusion that the exception was ambiguous.