BEFORE HAWKINS, P.J., DAN LEE AND ANDERSON, JJ.
HAWKINS, PRESIDING JUSTICE, FOR THE COURT:
Gene D. Vinson (Vinson) appeals from a decree of the chancery court of the Second Judicial District of Hinds County confirming a partition in kind of realty in which he owned an undivided one-fifth interest in fee.
Once again we have complaints in an appellant's brief of errors committed in the trial court, when the aggrieved party has nothing in the record to support his contentions. Once again we must tell attorneys that we do not consider alleged errors which have no support in the record.
Vinson alleges the chancellor denied him the opportunity to testify, to cross-examine witnesses, and that the property should have been sold rather than divided. Finding the record as clean as a hound's tooth on all his assignments, we affirm.
Vinson, as one of the five heirs-at-law of intestate Walter M. Vinson, was also one of the defendants in a partition action filed by other heirs to approximately 170 acres of realty in Hinds County.
Vinson, a resident of Chicago, filed an answer in which he alleged affirmatively that the property could not be divided in kind because of a four-bedroom brick dwelling and lake were situated on the land, and that the realty should be sold. It would appear that some attorney drafted
Vinson's answer, but the record is silent as to whether an attorney ever represented Vinson beyond this.
On the 18th day of October, 1984, the chancery court entered a final decree ordering a partition in kind. The decree appointed three commissioners and directed that they file their report no later than January 15, 1985; and that the report would come on for confirmation for the chancellor in vacation on January 30, 1985, at 9:00 a.m. The commissioners partited the land in kind and filed their report on January 15, 1985.
No objections or exceptions to the report were filed by Vinson or anyone else. On January 30, 1985, the chancellor entered a final decree confirming the commissioners' report.
The record does not reflect whether any evidence was taken either when the decree for partition or the confirmation decree was entered.
On appeal Vinson assigned two errors, complaining first that the chancellor entered a partition decree without giving him an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, or to present witnesses in his own behalf, and without taking any testimony whatever. Vinson further asserted that the lower court erred in entering the confirmation decree when one of the other tenants in common was especially favored in the partition, and the commissioners had failed to follow all the technical requirements of Miss. Code Ann. (1972) 11-21-21. He additionally claims in his rebuttal brief that he was denied to make a record when the confirmation decree was entered.
The record in this case shows the plaintiffs filed a complaint for partition in accordance with Miss. Code Ann. (1972) 11-21-3 and 11-21-5. Process was had on Vinson, and he filed an answer signed by ...