Court Opinion

ID: 9827295
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 17:23:18.264024+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:28.591043
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing. „
Appellants in their motion for a rehearing insist that we erred in affirming the judgment of the trial court, for the reason that appellees did not show that they were the owners of the property sequestered. This was not necessary. The evidence shows that it was taken from their possession and had not been returned. Appellants’ replevin bond was conditioned that they would have the property “forthcoming to abide the decision of the court.”
Where the plaintiff dismisses his suit, he fails to establish his right to the property sued for, and therefore, necessarily, the judgment must be against him. For a full discussion of this subject, see Morris v. Anderson, 152 S. W. 677. See, also, Coward v. Sutfin, 185 S. W. 378, and Wandelohr v. Bank, 106 S. W. 415.
Motion for rehearing is overruled.
Motion overruled.