105 So. 750 | Miss. | 1925
"Q. You did not give him permission to dispose of that cotton? A. We never object to any one disposing of the cotton and turning over the proceeds to us.
"Q. It is only when the proceeds are not paid over to you that there is any reason or cause of complaint? A. Yes, sir.
"Q. But he had permission to do as he had done, to sell the cotton and turn the proceeds over to you? A. There would have been no objection to that.
"Q. And both of you and he understood that? A. I guess he did. . . .
"Q. Mr. Brunini asked you yesterday whether or not you agreed with Mr. Thames that he might sell the cotton, and, as I remember it, you answered that you did not, but that you made no objection to any of your customers who mortgaged cotton to you selling their cotton if you got the money — what do I understand you to mean by that answer? A. I meant that we never expect a customer to whom we advance money on property to *881 actually turn the cotton over to the bank for the bank to sell. We expect them to sell the cotton in such a way as suits them, and turn over the proceeds to us until the indebtedness to us is satisfied."
It is manifest from this evidence that not only would the appellee have ratified the sale of the cotton by Thames had he accounted to it for the proceeds thereof, but that it expected and therefore authorized Thames to sell the cotton and to account to it for the proceeds. The appellee's complaint, therefore, is not that Thames sold the cotton, but that he failed to account to it for the proceeds thereof, and with this complaint the purchaser of the cotton has no concern. He received the cotton because of the bank's consent to its sale, free from the lien of the bank's deed of trust. Phillips v. Thomas,
The judgment of the court below will be reversed and the bill dismissed.
Reversed and dismissed.