Judges: PER CURIAM. —
Attorneys: W. B. Cone and Cone Chapman, for Appellant;
B. J. Padgett and Ida May Padgett, in pro. per., for Appellees.
Filed: Apr. 13, 1934
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: This case is before us on appeal from an order dismissing the bill of complaint. *Page 520 The decree cannot be reversed without holding that there is no substantial evidence found in the record to support the same. The record does not warrant our so holding. Neither can we say that the findings of the Chancellor were clearly erroneous. The chancellor, upon considering conflicting evidence, exercised his judicial right to determine the weight and probative force to be accorded all and all parts
Summary: This case is before us on appeal from an order dismissing the bill of complaint. *Page 520 The decree cannot be reversed without holding that there is no substantial evidence found in the record to support the same. The record does not warrant our so holding. Neither can we say that the findings of the Chancellor were clearly erroneous. The chancellor, upon considering conflicting evidence, exercised his judicial right to determine the weight and probative force to be accorded all and all parts o..
More
This case is before us on appeal from an order dismissing the bill of complaint.
The decree cannot be reversed without holding that there is no substantial evidence found in the record to support the same. The record does not warrant our so holding. Neither can we say that the findings of the Chancellor were clearly erroneous.
The chancellor, upon considering conflicting evidence, exercised his judicial right to determine the weight and probative force to be accorded all and all parts of the evidence presented to him and rendered his decree in favor of the defendants. It should be affirmed. So ordered.
Affirmed.
DAVIS, C. J., and WHITFIELD, ELLIS, TERRELL and BUFORD, J. J., concur.
