76 So. 629 | Miss. | 1917
delivered the opinion of the court.
This is an appeal from a decree of the chancery court of Warren county wherein the court, after hearing the testimony introduced by the appellant in support of her probated claim of one thousand two hundred dollars against the estate of E. C. Bundy, deceased, disallowed the claim on the ground that the evidence was not sufficient to support it, and from that decree on the facts this appeal is prosecuted here.
The testimony introduced before the chancellor in support of the claim of appellant showed the following state of facts: On the 12th day of December, 1914, an old man by the name of E. C. Bundy died, leaving a small estate of the value of about one thousand two hundred dollars. He had been sick, suffering from a cancer, for more than three years immediately prior to his death, and from which malady he fianally passed away. During the last three or more years of his life he lived in a small house owned by him near the boarding house of the appellant, Mrs. Josephine Loviza, in Vicksburg. And during these years of his sickness and málady, Mrs. Loviza furnished him his board by taking to him his meals three times per day, and bestowing upon him other attentions and assistance in his unfortunate condition. The deceased was a ship carpenter, and could command good wages when he was physically able to work, but for three or more years before his death, on account of the disease mentioned, he was unable to perform any services, and his income consisted alone of nine dollars per month paid to him for the rent of a
The testimony of the three witnesses introduced before the chancellor by the appellant, Mrs. Loviza, as to the nine hundred dollar board bill, appears to us to be positive and reasonable, and as it was mnimpeaehed and undisputed, we do not see why the chancellor failed to give it any credence whatever. The record shows that this testimony was all in the shape of depositions and decumentary evidence, and that the chancellor had no way of determining the credibility or truthfulness of the testimony except by the depositions and documentary evidence alone, which depositions and documentary proof are before us and have been carefully reviewed and considered. When the appellant had submitted her proof and rested her case with the chancellor, we think that sufficient evidence was submitted, and that it was positive, reasonable, and plausible, and therefore was entitled to credence, at least to the extent of requiring the appellee administrator to introduce some testimony to overcome the proof as to the board bill introduced by the appellant. But appellee introduced no evidence whatever. The claim may appear suspicious in some respects, but this is not sufficient to entirely overcome and destroy the proof presented by appellant.
The item of nine hundred dollars for board is the only item in the probated claim that we think was sufficiently
We do not pass upon the question of the reasonableness of the charge of twenty-five dollars a month for the board of Mr. Bundy for the three years immediately preceding his death, but so far as the proof stands now in the record this rate of twenty-five dollars per month is shown to have been probably reasonable. Of course, the statute of limitation of three years bars any claim in this case against the estate of the deceased that accrued three years prior to the date of his death. For the error pointed out above, the decree of the chancellor is reversed, and the cause remanded.
Reversed and remanded.