below committed error in Mississippi

2018"In short, if the trial court applies the 'correct legal standard,' [this Court] must affirm the decision regardless of what any [justice] individually might have ruled had [her or she] been the judge, unless there is a 'definite and firm conviction that the court below committed error.' " Ashmore , 148 So.3d at 982 .

1982Cas. 103. ( 161 Miss. at 525-26 , 137 So. at 510 ) * * * * * * The court below committed no error in enjoining the appellant from continuing to arrest the appellee for violation of the ordinance; ... ( 161 Miss. at 527 , 137 So. at 510 ) This Court likewise adhered to the same reasoning in the zoning case of Brooks v. City of Jackson, 211 Miss. 246 , 51 So.2d 274 (1951).

1982Cas. 103. ( 161 Miss. at 525-26 , 137 So. at 510 ) * * * * * * The court below committed no error in enjoining the appellant from continuing to arrest the appellee for violation of the ordinance; ... ( 161 Miss. at 527 , 137 So. at 510 ) This Court likewise adhered to the same reasoning in the zoning case of Brooks v. City of Jackson, 211 Miss. 246 , 51 So.2d 274 (1951).

1982Cas. 103. ( 161 Miss. at 525-26 , 137 So. at 510 ) * * * * * * The court below committed no error in enjoining the appellant from continuing to arrest the appellee for violation of the ordinance; ... ( 161 Miss. at 527 , 137 So. at 510 ) This Court likewise adhered to the same reasoning in the zoning case of Brooks v. City of Jackson, 211 Miss. 246 , 51 So.2d 274 (1951).

1982Cas. 103. ( 161 Miss. at 525-26 , 137 So. at 510 ) * * * * * * The court below committed no error in enjoining the appellant from continuing to arrest the appellee for violation of the ordinance; ... ( 161 Miss. at 527 , 137 So. at 510 ) This Court likewise adhered to the same reasoning in the zoning case of Brooks v. City of Jackson, 211 Miss. 246 , 51 So.2d 274 (1951).

1943Atkinson v. Felder, 78 Miss. 83 , 29 So. 767 ; Enochs-Flowers, etc., v. Bank of Forest, 172 Miss. 36 , 157 So. 711 , 159 So. 407 .

1943Atkinson v. Felder, 78 Miss. 83 , 29 So. 767 ; Enochs-Flowers, etc., v. Bank of Forest, 172 Miss. 36 , 157 So. 711 , 159 So. 407 .

1943Atkinson v. Felder, 78 Miss. 83 , 29 So. 767 ; Enochs-Flowers, etc., v. Bank of Forest, 172 Miss. 36 , 157 So. 711 , 159 So. 407 .

1935The judgment herein was affirmed ( 158 So. 339 ) on a former day, and we then held that the court below committed no error in admitting in evidence the appellants’ confessions, and that its error, if such it was, in admitting certain other evidence, was cured by its being thereafter excluded.

1929We think that upon the facts here involved the court below committed no error in adjudicating that probable cause for the search existed, and therefore that .the case comes within the rule announced in the case of Moore v. State, 138 Miss. 116 , 103 So. 483 , that “Belief by a police officer, based on information given him,by a credible person, that intoxicating' liquor is being transported in an automobile is sufficient probable cause to justify a search by him of the automobile without a warrant therefor under section 2, chapter 244, Laws of 1924.” The judgment of the court below will theref

1929We think that upon the facts here involved the court below committed no error in adjudicating that probable cause for the search existed, and therefore that .the case comes within the rule announced in the case of Moore v. State, 138 Miss. 116 , 103 So. 483 , that “Belief by a police officer, based on information given him,by a credible person, that intoxicating' liquor is being transported in an automobile is sufficient probable cause to justify a search by him of the automobile without a warrant therefor under section 2, chapter 244, Laws of 1924.” The judgment of the court below will theref

1925This court’s predecessor, the High Court of Errors and Appeals, so held in Nelms v. State, 13 Smedes & M. 500 , 53 Am.

1922Jamison v. Dulaney, 74 Miss. 890 , 21 So. 972 ; Curphy v. Terrell, 89 Miss. 624 , 42 So. 235 ; Mims v. Swindle, 124 Miss. 686 , 87 So. 151 .

1922Section 775, Code of 1906; Hemingway’s Code, section 558; McCue v. Massey, 90 Miss. 124 , 43 So. 2 ; Jones v. Clemmer, 98 Miss. 508 , 54 So. 4 .

1922Jamison v. Dulaney, 74 Miss. 890 , 21 So. 972 ; Curphy v. Terrell, 89 Miss. 624 , 42 So. 235 ; Mims v. Swindle, 124 Miss. 686 , 87 So. 151 .

1922Jamison v. Dulaney, 74 Miss. 890 , 21 So. 972 ; Curphy v. Terrell, 89 Miss. 624 , 42 So. 235 ; Mims v. Swindle, 124 Miss. 686 , 87 So. 151 .

1922Section 775, Code of 1906; Hemingway’s Code, section 558; McCue v. Massey, 90 Miss. 124 , 43 So. 2 ; Jones v. Clemmer, 98 Miss. 508 , 54 So. 4 .

1922Section 775, Code of 1906; Hemingway’s Code, section 558; McCue v. Massey, 90 Miss. 124 , 43 So. 2 ; Jones v. Clemmer, 98 Miss. 508 , 54 So. 4 .

1922Section 775, Code of 1906; Hemingway’s Code, section 558; McCue v. Massey, 90 Miss. 124 , 43 So. 2 ; Jones v. Clemmer, 98 Miss. 508 , 54 So. 4 .

1922The contracts made by the companies with their agents for the writing of insurance form no part of the agreement as to the rates to be charged for insurance which the court beloAV held had been made by the companies, but are collateral thereto ; and such contracts were held valid in McCall Co. v. Hughes, 102 Miss. 375 , 59 So. 794 , 42 L.

1922The contracts made by the companies with their agents for the writing of insurance form no part of the agreement as to the rates to be charged for insurance which the court beloAV held had been made by the companies, but are collateral thereto ; and such contracts were held valid in McCall Co. v. Hughes, 102 Miss. 375 , 59 So. 794 , 42 L.

1922The amendment permitted was not the striking out of the name of the original plaintiff and substituting therefor the name of another, as was attempted to be done in Railroad v. Maples, 107 Miss. 720 , 65 So. 644 , but was simply the addition of another necessary party plaintiff “so as to bring the merits of the controversy between the parties fairly to trial;” and the court below committed no error in permitting the amendment to be made.

1922The amendment permitted was not the striking out of the name of the original plaintiff and substituting therefor the name of another, as was attempted to be done in Railroad v. Maples, 107 Miss. 720 , 65 So. 644 , but was simply the addition of another necessary party plaintiff “so as to bring the merits of the controversy between the parties fairly to trial;” and the court below committed no error in permitting the amendment to be made.

1922Jamison v. Dulaney, 74 Miss. 890 , 21 So. 972 ; Curphy v. Terrell, 89 Miss. 624 , 42 So. 235 ; Mims v. Swindle, 124 Miss. 686 , 87 So. 151 .

1922Jamison v. Dulaney, 74 Miss. 890 , 21 So. 972 ; Curphy v. Terrell, 89 Miss. 624 , 42 So. 235 ; Mims v. Swindle, 124 Miss. 686 , 87 So. 151 .

1921The appellee has filed several cross-assignments of error, the only one of which is seriously pressed is that setting forth the overruling by the court below of the following motion made by it after the rendition of the verdict and before judgment was rendered thereon: “Now comes the plaintiff herein by its attorney and moves the court that the verdict herein which was for the plaintiff in the sum of three thousand five hundred dollars carry with it six per cent, interest per annum from June 1, 1918, the same being the date of the conversion of the land herein, and that said interest be added

1920The case, therefore, comes within the rule and principle of Brooks v. Kelly, 63 Miss. 616 , Hoopes v. Bailey, 28 Miss. 328 , Wallis’ Heirs v. Wilson’s Heirs, 34 Miss. 357 , Freeman v. Wilson, 51 Miss. 329 , and Fultz v. Peterson, 78 Miss. 128 , 28 So. 829 , and the court below committed no error in holding the deed from Campbell to Scarbrough to be in fact a mortgage.

1920The case, therefore, comes within the rule and principle of Brooks v. Kelly, 63 Miss. 616 , Hoopes v. Bailey, 28 Miss. 328 , Wallis’ Heirs v. Wilson’s Heirs, 34 Miss. 357 , Freeman v. Wilson, 51 Miss. 329 , and Fultz v. Peterson, 78 Miss. 128 , 28 So. 829 , and the court below committed no error in holding the deed from Campbell to Scarbrough to be in fact a mortgage.

1920The case, therefore, comes within the rule and principle of Brooks v. Kelly, 63 Miss. 616 , Hoopes v. Bailey, 28 Miss. 328 , Wallis’ Heirs v. Wilson’s Heirs, 34 Miss. 357 , Freeman v. Wilson, 51 Miss. 329 , and Fultz v. Peterson, 78 Miss. 128 , 28 So. 829 , and the court below committed no error in holding the deed from Campbell to Scarbrough to be in fact a mortgage.

1920The case, therefore, comes within the rule and principle of Brooks v. Kelly, 63 Miss. 616 , Hoopes v. Bailey, 28 Miss. 328 , Wallis’ Heirs v. Wilson’s Heirs, 34 Miss. 357 , Freeman v. Wilson, 51 Miss. 329 , and Fultz v. Peterson, 78 Miss. 128 , 28 So. 829 , and the court below committed no error in holding the deed from Campbell to Scarbrough to be in fact a mortgage.

1920The case, therefore, comes within the rule and principle of Brooks v. Kelly, 63 Miss. 616 , Hoopes v. Bailey, 28 Miss. 328 , Wallis’ Heirs v. Wilson’s Heirs, 34 Miss. 357 , Freeman v. Wilson, 51 Miss. 329 , and Fultz v. Peterson, 78 Miss. 128 , 28 So. 829 , and the court below committed no error in holding the deed from Campbell to Scarbrough to be in fact a mortgage.

1919Lavigne v. Russ, 36 Miss. 326 .

1917Russell v. State, 53 Miss. 367 ; Fortenberry v. State, 55 Miss. 403 ; Smith v. State, 58 Miss. 867 ; Spain v. State, 59 Miss. 19 ; and Cooper v. State, 59 Miss. 264 .

1917Russell v. State, 53 Miss. 367 ; Fortenberry v. State, 55 Miss. 403 ; Smith v. State, 58 Miss. 867 ; Spain v. State, 59 Miss. 19 ; and Cooper v. State, 59 Miss. 264 .

1917Russell v. State, 53 Miss. 367 ; Fortenberry v. State, 55 Miss. 403 ; Smith v. State, 58 Miss. 867 ; Spain v. State, 59 Miss. 19 ; and Cooper v. State, 59 Miss. 264 .

1917Russell v. State, 53 Miss. 367 ; Fortenberry v. State, 55 Miss. 403 ; Smith v. State, 58 Miss. 867 ; Spain v. State, 59 Miss. 19 ; and Cooper v. State, 59 Miss. 264 .

1917Russell v. State, 53 Miss. 367 ; Fortenberry v. State, 55 Miss. 403 ; Smith v. State, 58 Miss. 867 ; Spain v. State, 59 Miss. 19 ; and Cooper v. State, 59 Miss. 264 .

1917The court below committed no error in holding that appellee has a right of way by necessarily over appellant Davis’ land (Pleas v. Thomas, 75 Miss. 495 , 22 So. 820 ), but should not have enjoined the prosecution of the criminal proceeding begun in the court of the justice of the peace before appellee’s bill was filed (Crighton v. Dahmer, 70 Miss. 602 , 13 So. 237 , 21 L.