
    Carstarphen et al v. Jones. et al.
    [67 South. 177.]
    Appeal and Error, ¿findings. Review. Record.
    
    The findings of a chancellor will not he reversed on appeal, where the record shows that several witnesses testified orally upon the merits of the case, whose testimony is not in tne record, since this testimony may have been controlling with the chancellor.
    
      Appeal from the chancery court of Rankin county.
    Hon. Sam Whitmian, Chancellor.
    Suit by Will Carstarphen as administrator, and others against H. C. Jones and others. From a decree dismissing the complaint, plaintiff appeals.
    Appellants filed a bill in chancery against appellees for the purpose of quieting title to certain lands described in the bill. The case was trierl on pleadings, depositions, and proof in open court, and documentary evidence; and the chancellor rendered a decree dismissing complainants’ bill, from .which they appeal. The testimony of certain witnesses who testified before the chancellor is not incorporated in the record; and it is urged for that reason the finding of the chancellor below should he affirmed, since that testimony may have controlled his finding, and cannot be reviewed on appeal by the supreme court.
    
      Wells & Wells, for appellants.
    
      Lamar F. Easterling and George Butler, for appellees.
   Cook, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The record shows that several witnesses testified orally upon the merits of this case. The.- testimony of these. witnesses is not in the record. The chancellor heard this evidence, and this evidence may have justified his finding, and, as the evidence “is not before us, we are therefore not able to judge of its effect. It may have been controlling with the chancellor.” Wilson v. Brown, 94 Miss. 608, 47 So. 545.

Affirmed.  