Court Opinion

ID: 9771436
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 16:43:28.427346+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:31.428400
License: Public Domain

Ed F. McFaddin, Associate Justice, dissenting. The majority is reversing the finding of the Chancery Court on a fact question; and it is my view that the Chancellor, seeing the witnesses, had a better opportunity to evaluate the evidence than does this Court. So I would affirm the Chancellor. I view the letter of February 25,1955, that Honorable Hendrix Rowell wrote the appellants, and which they approved, as being a mere executory contract affecting real estate; and I believe he had a perfect right to declare a forfeiture, as he did. The letter and all the surrounding circumstances show that time was of the essence. The Chancery Court so found; and I cannot say that the preponderance of the evidence is against the Chancery finding. Therefore, I would affirm the Chancery decree. The Chief Justice joins in this dissent.