Court Opinion

ID: 9832884
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 22:16:42.253863+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:54.864132
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Counsel for appellees, in the motion for rehearing, refer to articles 3676 and 3677, which require that an objection to the form and manner of taking a deposition must be reduced to writing and filed with the papers in the cause before announcement for trial. Our attention is called to the fact that no such objection was filed in this case. It has been held that an objection, upon the ground that the answer of the witness was not responsive to the question is one which goes to the form and manner of taking depositions. I. & G. N. Ry. Co. v. Kuehn et al., 2 Tex. Civ. App. 210, 21 S. W. 58; Claflin et al. v. Harrington et ux., 23 Tex. Civ. App. 345, 56 S. W. 370. Such objection must here be treated as having been waived. We have again examined the record in this case, and find that there is no other ground upon which the judgment should be reversed.
 The contention urged by the appellant that the description of the property in the mortgage to the bank was too indefinite is not tenable, because in this instance appellant had no mortgage and claimed none. Its claim was based upon a contract of sale, which we think the court had a right to find had never been accepted so to become binding. Appellant’s claim was first set up after the property had been delivered by the mortgagee to the possession of the bank. For the same reason there is no merit in the objection that the mortgage to the bank was ineffective because it applied to goods daily exposed for sale. The controlling question is not whether the mortgage to the bank was valid, but whether Jimmerson had a right to deliver the property to the bank in satisfaction of his debt. We think he did have that right.
We have concluded that the judgment heretofore rendered, reversing and remanding this case, should be set aside, and the judgment of the trial court affirmed.