Opinion ID: 1703448
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: on motion of appellees to correct judgment

Text: LEE, J. On a former day of this Court, this cause was reversed and a judgment was entered for the appellant. Pursuant thereto, the judgment provided that the appellant, who had given bond and retained possession of the automobiles, should retain possession of them. The appellees filed a motion to correct the judgment so as to limit the appellant's recovery to its actual interest in the automobiles. That is what the judgment already means. (Hn 4) An action of replevin is possessory only. Scarborough v. Lucas, 119 Miss. 128, 80 So. 521; Jackson v. General Motors Acceptance Corporation, 151 Miss. 890, 119 So. 808; Roberts v. International Harvester Company, 181 Miss. 440, 180 So. 747. (Hn 5) The appellant has liens on the automobiles by reason of its encumbrances, and is entitled to possession of them for the purpose of enforcing those liens. They will continue to exist until the indebtedness, on account of which they arose, has been paid and satisfied. The appellant is not the outright owner of the automobiles, but must deal with them as security for the payment of its indebtedness and the satisfaction of its liens. Roberts v. International Harvester Co., supra; Commercial Credit Company v. Spence, 185 Miss. 293, 184 So. 439; Fanning v. C.I.T. Corporation, 187 Miss. 45, 192 So. 41; Martin v. Coker, 204 Miss. 576, 37 So.2d 772; Associates Discount Corporation v. Ruddock, 224 Miss. 533, 81 So.2d 249. Consequently the motion is overruled. Overruled.